Stanek weekend question: How big a difference do you think those “damned, ubiquitous, cherub-faced, please-mommy-don’t-get-an-abortion” pro-life billboards make?
Tara at Abortion Gang is depressed.
Tara recently learned her former lesbian partner and new partner who is pregnant have refused an amniocentesis. The two have decided they will take whatever baby they get, healthy or not, “whatever the universe thr[ows] at them.” Good for them!
There’s an interesting subplot in the post of a “gobsmacked” Tara arguing with her friend about the “flaws in her logic,” and then realizing what a “complete jerk” she was being for protesting her friend’s “reproductive health choices.” I applaud the mea culpa.
But here’s what Tara blames for her pro-choice friend’s change of heart:
But more and more these days I feel an unshakeable pessimism sinking into my bones….
[S]he had clearly been psychologically duped by years of exposure to those damned billboards….
While I ended up feeling resolved in regards to the tiff between my friend and me, I’ve remained troubled by a larger concern that’s been kicking around in my head since that conversation – the billboard factor: the thought that years of unrelenting exposure to the deliberate misdirection, manipulation and half-truths of those ubiquitous cherub-faced please-mommy-don’t-get-an-abortion billboards could have seeped quietly into the psyches of rational-minded, reality-based people.
My creeping suspicion is that under the barrage of relentless advertising over the years, even the most hippie liberal folks must be feeling hard-pressed to think of embryos/fetuses as anything less than fully-formed, thinking, talking, swimming, bouncing, giggling people.
And THAT is what’s given me a bad case of the grim-pessimisms these days, because if the most hyperbolic, highly- mock-able anti-choice propaganda is working on us liberal-minded folks – we’re in more trouble than I thought.
Weekend question: How big an impact do you think these “highly mock-able” pro-life billboards have made? We’ve all seen them.
My own mea culpa here: I’ve always thought most are a bit cheesy.
But apparently they do have an effect… even if it’s revulsion?
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.
I don’t know how much of an impact they make, but I think any time you can get a mom to realize that yes, she is a MOM and yes, it is a tiny human being growing inside of them it’s a positive thing.
And yes, it’s a tiny human being. Unless one of ya’ll pro-aborts wants to prove it’s a frog or something….
They put a human face on the issue. I love them. I hear stories all the time about women turning around from an abortion appt. when she sees one. In TN we have a laughing baby on our Choose Life plates. I works.
I prefer them to the gruesome ones, but I’ve felt they were a bit cheesy too. I suppose though, that it’s true that the more we hear/read something the more we believe it. Thanks for pointing out the effect they are having!
Love.
We have Prolife Across America billboards around here. I think they are adorable.
http://prolifeacrossamerica.org/
http://prolifeacrossamerica.org/currentcampaign/currentcampaign.htm
Clearly Tara is pro-abortion, not pro-“choice” or she’d be happy with her friends’ decision as their own.
As for the billboards – I think a variety of billboards, ads, etc. are useful – graphic and nongraphic, words and no words, etc. etc. etc….we are all different people and react in different ways to different types of ads - as long as they are speaking truth and proclaiming life – they are worth it :)
well tara said something about liberal pot smoking hippies. lol sounds to me like she may have smoked one too many joints herself. i do love pro life billboards. we had some really cuuuuuuute ones where 2 little baby boys were pictured and i cannot recall what they said but something about ” im the apple of dads eye.” or something like that. i actually cried because it was late afternoon when i spotted it and i thought……4000 babies died today.
I once read a story of a woman who saw the Abortion Stops a Beating Heart as a bumper sticker and chose life.
Tara is just mad that we are more creative and effective at showing life.
Poor Tara. Maybe she can come up with a campaign to peddle death more effectively.
i met a man from chicago the other day. he was here on business. we struck up a conversation and i asked him if he knew where christ hospital was. “oh sure” he replied. i told him about the abortions taking place there. he replied “christ hospital”? “i just cant believe it.” he shook his head in disbelief. he expressed outrage. hey gotta get the message out.
Amber, I agree, but then that is what Jill and we others have been pointing out for years.
Jill, isn’t cheesy what Americans do best? :D
How much of an impact? hmm, let’s see
two lesbians, more open minded
one lesbian, more “concerned” about her politics
one new baby will get to smile at her mommy, and her mommy (Sad this, but it is what it is)
On the whole, that’s “teh win!!”
Perhaps somehwere along the line, one of them (Let’s be bold in our faith) or each of them, will meet Jesus, before it’s too late. He clearly has already spoken to them.
-Kevin
Whenever I see one of these billboards it reminds me that there are still some sane people in this insane world who are willing to spend their time, efforts and money on standing up for others — shouting out the truth.
Tara’s fears are well-founded. Those billboards are very effective. There is a name for it:
Evangelization.
It’s why the proaborts in New York City had a billboard torn down within 24 hours earlier this year. They are effective tools in evangelizing.
It’s why the left can’t even bear to hear “Merry Christmas” on the lips of customers in stores, or “One nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
There’s power in the name of Jesus, just in the name being spoken.
Tara isn’t mad, or gobsmacked. She’s frightened, like the demons who cried out to Jesus that their time (to be cast into hell) had not yet come, and so were commanded into a herd of swine.
But Tara is neither a demon, nor swine. Jesus died for her too, and perhaps we need a few billboards aimed at the proaborts, announcing the glad tidings of their salvation as well.
The most potent bit of advertising I ever saw was when I didn’t kill my daughter in an abortion when I was pregnant with her, allowed her to be born despite the protests of everyone around me and the fact that I’d lose my job and place to live, and found that she had never been anything less than a than fully-formed, thinking, talking, swimming, bouncing, giggling person.
But yes, Tara, it must be those evil, lying billboards. You keep thinking that.
youre right dr nadal. i talk about god to everyone. many many people still believe. as for those who dont i guess thats their problem. i have that right to love god and is it any wonder that the next generations are bisexual gay pro abortion? much different from when i was growing up. we said the pledge every morning. my dad was outraged when god was kicked out of the schools. they were working it back then. madeline murrey o hara i believe that was her name. she fought to have god removed. she was murdered by her bodyguard and chopped to pieces and disposed of. someone found a journal shed been writing in after her death. she wrote “somebody somewhere please love me.”…if she had only known jesus DID love her!!!!!!!!
despite popular belief, I have many gay friends or pro-gay rights allies who are pro-life – don’t know where that accusation came from all of a sudden.
I like them 100% more than the shock value ones.
In these, it focuses on the beautiful thing that is to come when a baby is born. They usually have a phone number for help and assistance, and the basic message is help, hope, and love.
The shock value pictures are about shame, condemnation, and wrath. Sure, there are people who agree with reaching folks with those messages (like PETA) and they will be successful with some people – but in general, it is a much easier message to ignore, offers no help or hope, and in my mind, isn’t something a Christian should be involved with. Just my two cents.
amber i knew a lesbian couple. they adored me and they were pro life. mikey told me “heather if you make a baby you need to lay down and have it.” she has a grown son.
i have heard pro aborts say “we are okay with the non graphic signs.” you are? well im not here for their comfort. im going to use my graphic signs!
I think they are effective… they offer promise, and hope.
Re-read Dr. Nadal’s comment at 10:18 am. His comment goes to the heart of the matter in just a few words.
I WANT THEM TO SEE WHAT THEY SUPPORT….i dont have a problem viewing what i support!
heather says:
December 10, 2011 at 10:49 am
youre right dr nadal. i talk about god to everyone.
God, heather. Capital G.. always. ;)
ex gop…you say the graphic signs are about shame? why? abortion is just a choice. where is the shame in the sign? if there is not one ounce of shame in a choice then how could a sign produce it?
i know pamela. i keep thinking i ought to make sure its capital. sometimes my phone pad sticks when i do so. but i will do it from now on;)
where is the shame in the sign? if there is not one ounce of shame in a choice then how could a sign produce it?
Hi Heather, I thought the same thing — if abortion is an acceptable choice, how could showing the consequences of that choice elicit shame? Hmmm… maybe abortion is not acceptable because of its consequences, ie a dead human being.
hi eric. bingo! if im driving by a billboard that shows mcdonalds with a pic of a hamburger fries and a coke and then i pass another for burger king picturing the same…its offering a CHOICE of where i would like to eat. likewise a car add or a clothing store. i love choices. im sure you do also eric. i just dont like the choice of a dead baby vs a living one.
i personally like to watch the pro aborts scream bloody murder. heck if im gonna stand on the sidewalk i might as well make it worth my while. also many people stop and study the signs and say “omg is that really what an abortion looks like”? they had no clue. its a teaching technique.
I think we need both — the bloody corpses and the cute cherubs.
As long as the secular world celebrates “choice,” we need to show the fruits of their choices.
They can choose Life, and receive the natural result: A cute little baby, for whom nature has endowed us all with a desire to love and nurture.
Or they can choose Murder, which is repulsive and brutal and messy.
I suppose the graphic signs further harden the hearts of the hard-hearted. I don’t know how anyone can look at those and not be moved.
And I suppose the cute signs further soften the hearts of the soft-hearted. I am always touched by those images on public billboards.
heather/Eric – every choice has consequences of the decision. I’m not a pro-choicer, but I would hope that a pro-choice person wouldn’t simply say there’s no consequences of having an abortion. I have three kids myself and there are certainly consequences of the choice of having kids! So there are consequences either way.
Back to Heather’s original question though – the point of the graphic signs (whether they are from PETA, a pro-lifer, or somebody raising money for starving kids in Africa) is to the show the reality/extreme of a situation of choice and make a person feel shame regarding that choice. I don’t think you can deny the goal of it is about making a person feel shamed.
ex you never explained shame. why would there be any shame at all? its just a choice. i can look at pics of abused animals and say “thats awful”!!!!! likewise children in starving countries. but people who want to keep abortion legal should be able to look at a graphic sign and be okay with it.
to those who want to keep abortion legal….look at your choice. i never felt ashamed after consuming a hamburger at burger king. after making my choice to eat it after looking at the picture.
I don’t think you can deny the goal of it is about making a person feel shamed.
Ex-GOP, I do deny the goal is to make a person feel shamed for a past choice. Shame doesn’t save the life already lost. The goal is about communicating the consequences to those facing choices in the future in order to save lives.
They should be okay with it (unless they take the approach of death penalty supporters and simply say “we need to build a less gruesome method, hence the adoption of the cocktail) – what I’m saying though is the INTENT of the person holding the sign is to make the person feel shame of what they’ve done.
You might look at the picture of the abused animal and say “that is awful” – it is the same intent. The animal rights folks will say “if you eat meat, you are contributing to this”. Exact same concept and goal.
I’m just saying that the shame approach does work with some. I’m not a fan of it, as a Christian, and from a logical standpoint. I think it has too many holes in an actual debate and to a logical person. You’ll sweep up some of the illogical emotional ones though.
Eric – that is fine – we’ll have to agree to disagree then.
I love the billboards with live babies and phone numbers for help for expectant moms. I am not getting into another argument about graphic signs, Ex summed my views up nicely. Now, I am just waiting for more gay bashing. :(
The thing is Tara is not liberal. She is not respectful of other people’s choices. She thinks she is liberal because she is not opposed to abortion and some other things, but that doesn’t make someone liberal. In some cases, like abortion, it just makes them wrong. A liberal can tolerate stuff that is wrong in the name of well, tolerance, respect and freedom. But Tara doesn’t really believe in any of those things. She believes in a sort of supremacy. She thinks liberals are smart cool and she wants to be one because she wants to be liked by the cool people and considered smart, too. However, she misses the point of liberalism which is free thought and action. She doesn’t believe in that. She believes is a supremacy of a certain set of goals. These goals are often conflated with liberalism because a lot of liberals agree with them, but if you are in lock step with a certain set of beliefs, then, by definition you aren’t liberal, and in her case, not a very clear thinker either.
Billboards. They don’t strive to be cool, trendy etc. They basically serve to bring up the topic. The keep bringing abortion to people’s view. They don’t need to be clever, just accurate and sincere. They need to be out there so that kids will say, “Mommy, what is abortion?” We know that most people are personally opposed to abortion in most cases, so it gives kids a chance to say to their parents, “you wouldn’t ever do that, would you?” The majority of kids are going to hear, “No, of course not.” because by far most kids live in households where the parents are at least personally opposed to abortion. So, the billboards are very effective at bringing up the topic within families, so it can be discussed with kids. This is their greatest value. It is important for the word ‘abortion’ to appear in big letters in order to initiate the conversations.
Ex-GOP,
I do agree that it would not be Christian nor pro-life if someone were to hold a sign with the intent of inciting shame because shame over a past choice does not save a life. I have never known anyone to hold a sign to make a post-abortive woman feel shame. However, I have known people who have held aborted baby signs, and they do so to save *future* lives.
Ex-GOP, if you know people who hold aborted baby signs with the INTENT of shaming post-abortive women, don’t hesitate to tell them that a very pro-life person on this blog — namely me — thinks they are misguided at best, evil at worst. Pro-life isn’t about shame over past abortions, it is about saving future lives.
Eric – I’m confused now – so let’s say I had an abortion (I’m a father of three kids, so a bit of a stretch, but go with me here…) and I see you holding a sign of a mutilated baby. What is your intent? What do you hope that I feel?
Or there’s a guy who holds graphic photos outside of churches that he believes don’t live up to the standards that HE has set regarding pro-life activity. What do you feel is his intent in holding those signs?
Ex –
To me, the graphic stuff isn’t about making people feel guilt – though they probably will feel it, and should, as it will help them work through what they’ve been feeling, that is not my intent if and when I share the graphic stuff.
Now, I’ve never personally stood on street corners with the pictures, but I do share them on FB or with friends from time to time.
It shows a truth – there’s a reason that people can’t handle the photos – to some, yes, it might just be that they can’t handle ANY gory things, abortion related or not – but for others it is just that they do not want to believe the truth, they do not want to see abortion for what it is, or they do feel guilty over it and do not want to come to terms with it…
I think the graphic stuff is aimed more at those who are just sympathetic with abortion – not those who have actually had them or who fight for them – but for those who do not know what it really is and are ignoring it – ESPCIALLY churches who do not teach about what the Gospel has to say about abortion.
Graphic images show abortion for what it is – murder.
The non-graphic ads also have a place and a meaning.
Amber -
Fair enough (though I disagree on the churches part – we can chat on that if you’d like).
Question for you.
Would it be a reasonable reaction for somebody to say – “wow, that is gross. I believe we need to press forward in two ways – expanding access to the morning after pill to avoid gross images like this, and exploring other methods of abortion that result in less gory images”.
I’m not asking if you agree with that statement, I’m asking if that would be a logical response to seeing the images.
Because that is my response with PETA – I don’t like animals to be tortured – I think we should figure out a way to humanely kill them so that I can enjoy my burger.
“wow, that is gross. I believe we need to press forward in two ways – expanding access to the morning after pill to avoid gross images like this, and exploring other methods of abortion that result in less gory images”.
This, right here, is why I think the graphic images fail. I see this response, and people thinking that they are fake, and people who have had abortions feel blamed and hated and it drives them away from seeking help if they need it. I just don’t think the images do what they are intended to do.
Humanely kill, oxymoron. Amber and I are vegetarians, you don’t want that argument, lol. ;)
Ex – I could see some people possibly responding that way but my point would be “It might be less bloody, but the fact is – no matter how you do it, abortion would still be killing babies.”
And the PETA situation doesn’t work on me, as I’m a vegetarian ;)
But others would probably respond “there’s a difference between killing a human child and a non-human animal.”
Haha Jack - just saw your comment - agreed – there’s no such thing as humanely killing :P
Ha – yes Jack!
Two things:
1) I appreciate your presence on this board.
2) The pro death penalty crowd used this same logic brilliantly. The abolishment crowds showed picture of a botched electric chair execution (well, it worked, but it was nasty). The response they hoped for was to abolish the DP. The response they got was a “peaceful” death through a chemical cocktail.
I love the non-graphic signs as well as the graphic ones. Both change hearts. There is a sweet billboard on the PA turnpike that is non graphic and I say a prayer whenever I drive past it.
Yes Anne – but that is not the argument of the sign. The argument isn’t “you are killing a baby” – the argument is clearly, “look at this gross pile of body parts”.
That is why I like the positive messages.
Plus, plain and simply – if a woman thinks she can’t afford children and the medical care and isn’t ready for it, help is what she needs. Hope is what she needs.
Ex –
See, I do not get that! I am against the death penalty – but when I WAS for it, I never understood the whole let’s kill them gently thing…either kill them with some punishment factor…or let them rot in jail…not go out peacefully!
Haha buuuuut that was in the past…now it is my hope that some how, some day, these criminals will see the wrongs of their way and make peace with God before they die a natural death.
Yes – and I agree with you…though not the point here….
The point IS that what I said earlier is a logical response, and your rebuttal is logical, but that is not the message of the sign. If the sign is the main exposure a person has to the debate, or the image they link to the debate, it can be quickly dismissed (logically).
Aw, I appreciate you being here too, Ex. I tend to agree with you on a lot of issues.
I would think that showing real, live babies, testimony from women who were damaged by their abortions and are finding healing through the pro-life side, and other positive, life-affirming messages would do more to turn people away from abortion than any graphic sign could do. At least, that has been my experience and what makes more sense to me.
While these exercises in discussing the pros and cons of various signs can be instructive and useful in educating us about effective ways to promote our cause, they certainly are no substitute for activism. Those with a good heart and good intentions should do what is what is within the law to try to stop abortion. Yes some feathers will be ruffled along the way but that is to be expected. No one wants to be told they are wrong–such as when a passerby might find something offensive–but sometimes reality intervenes in ways that might upset someone.
The main point is never to lose a sense of urgency for the plight of the unborn and their mothers. We simply do not have the luxury to wait around until we find the perfect strategy that no one will find offensive. The crucial issue here is that more than 3000 babies are being killed every day before nature runs its course and they are born. This is a tragedy of nearly unimaginable proportions.
Ex – I agree in some cases.
Like I said, I think there’s a time and a place for each kind of ad.
I also prefer the one-on-one type approach like that by Ray Comfort in 180 Movie.
http://www.180movie.com
Jerry – Agreed :)
What about all the graphic advertisements, pictures and television ads, that show starving and emaciated people in Africa and other third-world countries? Are they supposed to make us shameful? If anything, I would think it would instill compassion and put the desire on one’s heart to help those that are suffering and starving. Maybe non-graphic is the safer way, but I would guess that thousands have had their hearts converted by seeing those graphic pro-life ads.
Ex-GOP,
The intent of the graphic signs is not to make you or any post-abortive mother feel guilty, although I am sure many of them probably feel that way. The emotional response of the viewer is their personal choice. Blaming the people who put up the sign is akin to blaming the prosecutor for showing the jury pictures of the murder victim during a trial. No one wants to see such pictures, but showing them reminds us of the truth. The murder victim and the aborted baby are equally human and the pictures prove it better than words ever can.
We need pictures of the beautiful babies and the the ugly pictures of babies killed by abortion. Too many people think of abortion as a necessary solution and don’t want to face the truth. Pictures will reach more people more effectively than any other medium.
Proaborts hate the pictures of the born babies. They hate the pictures of the dead babies. If they switched their stance, they’d find they don’t hate so much.
What I’m going to say right now is not going to be very popular here (a big surprise, huh?), but guilt and shame can be good. They have a function in our society. God writes His law on our hearts, and when we go against that law AND our consciences have been properly formed, then guilt and shame can be instructive inner mechanisms that instruct and chasten us. We need that. We live in a Jerry Springer society where no one is ashamed or guilt y of anything, because all choices are equal, and if we have a problem with any of them, then it is we who are intolerant.
All choices are NOT equal. And if you are a post abortive mom who sees a picture of an aborted baby and actually FEELS guilty, then I say, that’s a gift. That’s your HUMANITY (created by God) knocking you upside the head. So you work through that guilt and you can arrive in a place where God’s mercy and healing meet yoy where you are.
Shame and guilt would not be very helpful if they only made you feel uncomfortable. The healing is where it leads, and true, I think that’s probably a messy process. But it’s gotta happen.
LifeLetterj,
I disagree with emotional responses being only personal choice. I believe a lot of factors play in, but biological response from our primitive evolution being one of them. In the same way that some people find two men kissing guterally disgusting while others find it cute and heartwarming. It’s not just a personal choice, it’s a biological reaction that is influenced by nature, nurture, and personal feelings and personal history.
As for the jury, they knew when they got selected for jury duty, and then selected for a case, that there was potential for crime scene related graphic photos. Not the same as people walking down the street next to a demonstration with graphic photos, or people driving in their cars doing their daily errands, etc. Please do not compare the warned and knowing possibility of gore to the unexpected in your face presence of it.
Ex-GOP,
The intent of the graphic signs is not to make you or any post-abortive mother feel guilty, although I am sure many of them probably feel that way. The emotional response of the viewer is their personal choice. Blaming the people who put up the sign is akin to blaming the prosecutor for showing the jury pictures of the murder victim during a trial. No one wants to see such pictures, but showing them reminds us of the truth. The murder victim and the aborted baby are equally human and the pictures prove it better than words ever can.
We need pictures of the beautiful babies and the the ugly pictures of babies killed by abortion. Too many people think of abortion as a necessary solution and don’t want to face the truth. Pictures will reach more people more effectively than any other medium.
Courtnay,
Not everyone believes in the same god.
“ We need that. We live in a Jerry Springer society where no one is ashamed or guilt y of anything, because all choices are equal, and if we have a problem with any of them, then it is we who are intolerant.”
There are different levels of this. Abortion actually harms someone, it does violence to the unborn human and in that we should all speak up against it. I consider it “intolerant” to hate and treat those who are pro-choice or have had abortions badly, though. And sometimes, with some issues that are not harming anyone, I consider it intolerant to try and instill guilt into those people who are not harming you, or really affecting your life at all.
”All choices are NOT equal. And if you are a post abortive mom who sees a picture of an aborted baby and actually FEELS guilty, then I say, that’s a gift. That’s your HUMANITY (created by God) knocking you upside the head. So you work through that guilt and you can arrive in a place where God’s mercy and healing meet yoy where you are.”
I see what you are saying, but I know many who will run away from the graphic signs and their guilt because they see it as an attack. I think acting with love and reaching out to these women would do far more than making them feel guilty with some pictures.
I don’t think attempting to instill shame or guilt actually works the way you are describing, honestly. I think it pushes people away. I think that having a loving response and letting people know that they are loved and accepted, even though they have done something wrong, is a much more effective starting point than making them feel guilty or ashamed. I know that people who tried to make me feel guilty or shamed me for mistakes I made sent me in the opposite direction. People who accepted and cared for me despite my mistakes got me set on the path to healing.
The billboards themselves are craven attempts at manipulating the actions of emotionally vulnerable people (women with unwanted pregnancies) in ways that go against their own rational interests, and should be condemned on the basis of their predatory intent. With that said, I don’t think they have much of an effect on the broader political and social dialogue, because most people probably just ignore them, like they do with any fringe countercultural imagery.
Duck, not everybody believes in the same god. True that.
But everybody has the same God.
Jack, agreed
Courtnay,
Not everybody has the same god. That is a theological case of ethnocentrism.
Courtnay,
Further, not everyone has a god at all. Some people have many.
Joan!!! where have you been???
How can it be a “woman’s rational interest” to kill her own baby? Why is it that it always has to be mom vs. baby???
Abortion does stop a beating heart. Why must it be death for the unborn for a problem to be resolved?
Tell us again, what did your abortion resolve?
Duck, not everybody believes in the same god. True that.
But everybody has the same God.
AMEN!
No, it’s a case of truth , Duck. AGAIN, truth is not subjective. If I believe that God is God, he’s not God for just some of the people. Some will find this out in this life, some won’t. Ethnocentrism?? It’s called belief and fidelity and desire to live the truth.
What good would Truth and God be if I wasn’t going to be absolute in them?
If I embrace the Truth, Duck, then it has to be true for everyone for all time. And I must reject anything that opposes it.
Truth: Abortion is the killing of an innocent child.
Truth: The killing of an innocent child is always wrong.
Truth: It can’t be ok for you and wrong for me. Either it is or it isn’t.
Courtnay,
Your desire to believe in a god that you believe is everyone’s god, does not make it so. That’s a logical fail.
so let’s say I had an abortion … and I see you holding a sign of a mutilated baby. What is your intent? What do you hope that I feel?
Ex-GOP — those whom I have known who hold signs are not targeting post-abortive women but broadcasting to everyone. The signs are not designed to hope people *feel* anything but to hope people *know* that abortion kills a human being.
As LifeLetterj eloquently stated, “The emotional response of the viewer is their personal choice.“ And Duck, I believe your example, “In the same way that some people find two men kissing guterally disgusting while others find it cute and heartwarming” only contradicts your assertion that emotional responses are biological… otherwise everyone would have the same response.
“No, it’s a case of truth , Duck. AGAIN, truth is not subjective. If I believe that God is God, he’s not God for just some of the people. Some will find this out in this life, some won’t. Ethnocentrism?? It’s called belief and fidelity and desire to live the truth.”
Courtnay, I completely respect your right to believe and have faith in God. I think your faith and conviction is admirable.
I do think, however, when you are arguing with others about an issue like abortion, that it doesn’t make sense to use your belief system as a basis for your arguments. Because a lot of people don’t share them, so they will tend to ignore the reality of abortion because they reject your starting premise all together. I don’t share your views on God. I do, however, share your views on abortion, because I think there are many secular and human rights arguments that support the anti-abortion argument.
There is definitely a time to share your faith, and I would never try to prevent someone from doing so. However, if you are attempting to change someone’s mind about something like abortion, simply saying it is so because it is true, and because God says so, isn’t going to reach anyone who doesn’t share your views on God. And if they did share your views on God, they would probably be pro-life anyway!
Eric, it’s a biological response combined with nurture. Not just by itself. They can’t control the emotion they feel if they’ve been conditioned/raised/etc to believe a certian way.
“Eric, it’s a biological response combined with nurture. Not just by itself. They can’t control the emotion they feel if they’ve been conditioned/raised/etc to believe a certian way.”
And plus, not all emotional responses are the same across all cultures. Plus, genetically based responses are different from person to person, because no one is exactly the same genetically. There are base similarities, but also a lot of variation.
They can’t control the emotion they feel if they’ve been conditioned/raised/etc to believe a certian way.
Duck, I agree emotions are not a choice. However, at risk of haggling over semantics, I still assert a person’s emotional *response* (ie longer term beyond the short term gut reaction) is still a choice. I agree that biologically, humans are disgusted (gut reaction) by images of dismembered humans. However, the emotional *response* is the choice — 1) shame (subjective and inward, “how does this affect me?”) or 2) compassion (objective and outward, “how does this affect unborn babies?”)
Jack and Duck–you miss the whole point of faith and truth. We will see. Abortion being a relevant topic in the Christian community is particularly relevant to me as I live in a town on mountain that is built around an Episcopal boarding school, college, and seminary. There is NOTHING more egregious to me than a self-proclaimed Christian who thinks killing a pre born baby is a righteous choioce. But you are right, Jack, there are PLENTY and VERY STRONG arguments against abortion in the secular vein, and they are getting stronger all the time as modern science makes it more clear the humanity of the fetus.
Having said that, I can’t NOT be a Christian in what I say, write or process. I am merely underscoring the point that if we are Christian, our beliefs about life aren’t just for us. The ways that he wants us to live aren’t for those who just happen to wisen up. I do understand that if you are not a believer, this seems foolish. Okay. I’m used to that. But foolishness in no way compromises the Truth.
Duck, is there anything you hold absolutely true, for everyone, for all time? Where is your line in the sand? What are you willing to stake your heart and soul for? I’d be interested to know what that is.
Eric, yes, how they choose to react to their own emotional response is their choice. That though still is largely based on many factors including upbringing, socio-economic background, cultural bias, etc.
so let’s say I had an abortion … and I see you holding a sign of a mutilated baby. What is your intent? What do you hope that I feel?
Anger. Justifiable anger that your country legalized such an atrocious act in the name of choice.
Sadness. Extreme sadness that will allow you to cry the tears that will help you heal.
Compassion. Endless compassion for those who need your help and find themselves scared and alone.
Courage. Enough courage to speak out so women realize children are not a burden but a blessing. Courage to join those who see the humanity in everyone and want to put abortion in the history books.
Courtnay,
Does this passage…
“I do understand that if you are not a believer, this seems foolish. Okay. I’m used to that. But foolishness in no way compromises the Truth.”… mean that you accept the validity of other beliefs about deities?
In San Luis Obispo California, many years ago, there was a billboard. I’m sorry to say that I never saw it anywhere else, and after a year or so, it was replaced with something else. The message was very short and simple, but very powerful. In big letters it said,
“Never Hurt a Child.”
Then in even bigger letters, it said
NEVER NEVER NEVER!!!!
At the bottom, in small letters was the address of some group that helps fight child abuse.
As you drove along that road, you couldn’t miss the billboard or its message. It was very eye catching.
I don’t have children myself, so I’m not under the stress that parents get. But I know many parents drove by that busy road every day. I wondered how many of them were child abusers. Probably some were. I also wondered how many of them drove by on any given day, saw the billboard, and did NOT beat their child that night. Maybe they weren’t even aware that’s why they were able to restrain themselves.
Presumably, this billboard was about born children, at least many don’t see fetuses as children. There was nothing stating the age or location of the children in question, just don’t hurt them. The reader was left to decide what it meant to never hurt a child; you could read an anti-abortion message in there or not, depending on whether you think fetuses are children.
Interesting that decades later, I still remember that billboard and what I thought of it. I thought it was awsome. I’m only sorry I didn’t see more billboards like it since then.
Yeah, I think pro-life billboards have an effect. But the message has to be short, simple, and powerful. Remember, people driving by may not have a lot of time to read it, so you have to pack a big punch in as few words as possible. Make the letters very large and attention getting. Keep pictures and other decorations to a minimum, so they don’t distract from the message. Leave a lot of unadorned space around the letters, so as not to distract attention from them. I think this billboard had a picture of a child off on the side, but the letters weren’t too close to it, so the eye didn’t have to work to separate the picture from the letters. These are things that made that billboard I saw in San Luis Obispo, Calif. so powerful.
Yeah, I think the pro-life movement should use billboards. If done right, they can be very effective.
Duck, I would also add to your list: personal experience ie had an abortion or not; and personal value system, ie belief that sexuality requires a relationship open to children or not.
Courtnay,
“Duck, is there anything you hold absolutely true, for everyone, for all time? Where is your line in the sand? What are you willing to stake your heart and soul for? I’d be interested to know what that is.”
There’s a Chinese proverb that states “There are many paths up the same mountaintop.”
If what that means to my views on absolute truths is confusing, I’ll have trouble explaining exactly about my personality and views… but suffice that if you were to watch an episode or two of Bones and an episode of Big Bang Theory, I’m pretty much literally a mashup combination of Dr. Temprence Brennon and Leonard respectively of those shows. That’s the best I can really explain. I never really could explain it before, but now that those shows are out, I can point and say, that, that is me.
Hope that answers your question.
Eric, very true!
“Having said that, I can’t NOT be a Christian in what I say, write or process. I am merely underscoring the point that if we are Christian, our beliefs about life aren’t just for us. The ways that he wants us to live aren’t for those who just happen to wisen up. I do understand that if you are not a believer, this seems foolish. Okay. I’m used to that. But foolishness in no way compromises the Truth.”
I do not call Christians foolish, nor do I think that they are, so the insinuation is a little rude. I am not saying that ANY Christian, or anyone of any type of faith, should have to check it at the door, that wasn’t really my point. My point is, that you guys weaken your arguments when you make them religiously, and I think a better approach is to simply make secular arguments. It is extremely important that we end abortion, and when I see people making arguments that I don’t think are going to be effective at changing anyone’s heart and mind, I feel obliged to say something.
If you are talking to another Christian who is pro-choice, then yeah of course you should attempt to explain the theology that they are wrong on. You would be much better at converting someone to pro-life in that case then I would be.
About the Christian way of life being for everyone, not just for you, that’s fine for you to believe. I don’t have to live the way you think I should, just because you believe that it is so.
Eric, I like your debate style. Very civil toward me even though I’m pro-choice. Thank you.
Duck, my daughter loves Bones! LOL! We had to have a talk about the show just last month because Bones and her partner are pregnant and shacking up, and we (my husband and I) were teaching her about God’s way vs. Hollywood’s way, and how marriage should go before pregnancy. Her response? She’s 13! A little eye rolling, but I think she understood.
If I am a Christian, then I must accept that Jesus is the only way. That’s called being a Christian. If I accept Him, then I must reject all other deities. This is the heart of my point: in some things, there is only one way, one answer, one Truth. In religion, it’s Jesus. In pregnancy, ideal or crisis, it’s Life.
JackBorsch, your comments remind me of a philosophy class I had in high school where we studied the words of Jesus as recorded in Scripture. It was a public high school, so we also studied the words of Ghandi, Mohammed, Buddha, Plato, Aristotle, Moses, etc. Even outside of religion, Jesus’ words set a philosophy that have guided the development of culture. The Parable of the Good Samaritan comes to mind — it discourages tribalism and encourages charity to all.
Jesus may be the only way to your heaven. It does not mean however, that there is no validity of existence for other religions.
Credit goes to my parents, Duck, who instilled a Christian sense of civility and humility ;-)
I’m glad you are open to visiting this site, I appreciate your comments as well.
Jack, I did not mean to be rude. If I were an outside looking in for the first time at Christianity, I would certainly see it as pretty foolish (God born as a baby to a virgin, making water into wine, rising from the dead, sending the Holy Spirit…..). In fact, the word foolish or “folly” is from a famous Scripture verse about how St. Paul knew that if we preached Christ crucified, the world would consider us crazy, and it still does.
Whether or not you live a Christian life is not really important here, at least in this blog. If God is God, then He will find you one way or another. And if I’m wrong, well, then it won’t really matter. But I embrace Jesus as he said he is, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, then I will especially cherish the fact that he himself was a problem pregnancy, born in a less than ideal situation. Maybe that will help you understand why I love life so much. If my Christian rhetoric weakens my pro-life arguments….not sure what to say about that. I gotta be me, and I am His!
Duck, I don;t disagree. There is much validity for other religions. But there can only be the one that’s true.
Eric, I enjoy dialogue and learning. Some people on this site treat me with hostility. But for the most part, civil discourse is had by all.
Courtnay,
“Duck, I don;t disagree. There is much validity for other religions. But there can only be the one that’s true. “
There’s a favorite Christian theologian of mine who said this… “If it works for you it’s true.” His name was William James. So, thank you for clarifying your view on the validity, that helps me understand where you are coming from better. As for the one that’s true, I refer to William James. :)
Eric, I agree that there is a lot to be learned from Christianity, and that secularists do themselves a disservice if they do not even learn how it has historically shaped our culture.
Courtnay, I was raised in a very fundamentalist home, where I was taught a version of Christianity that was fairly repugnant to most people, probably you too since you seem like a caring person. However, my wife is a Christian as is her entire family, and I have learned a lot about Christianity and Christians. I don’t think that people are foolish or stupid based on their religious beliefs, not at all. My wife would kill me if I bashed on Christians, lol. My reasons for not accepting Christianity at the moment are personal and not really relevant at the moment. My point definitely wasn’t to bash on you for your beliefs or insinuate you should be quiet about them. I simply see a lot of secularists being turned off the pro-life point of view because they feel like their views are degraded or ignored, and that people judge them. Not that you were doing that, but I think sometimes people should take a step back and examine how their arguments look to someone who does not share their Christian background. I would like to see more secularists join me on the pro-life side, and it’s hard to convince them it’s not simply a religious movement.
Courtnay,
Re-reading posts to make sure I didn’t miss something. I’m glad you like the show Bones, I hope my comparisson to Dr Brennon and her personality type helped explain my interaction style.
Duck, I find this really interesting because it helps me understand where you are coming from as well and why abortion, in your opinion, is an acceptable choice for some women. Because, as James puts it, if it works for you….
Because we believe something does not make it so. Whether you or I or our friend William recognizes Christ as Lord has absolutely NO bearing on whether he is or not. But he cannot be Lord and Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Allah, whomever…be Lord at the same time.
There was a time after my back surgery 4 years ago, that Oxycontin was TOTALLY working for me, and I believed in it. Thankfully, I woke up from my drug nap and realized oxy’s euphoria was a LIE.
God did not create us to “work for” us. He created us to love us. You too.
Well,
I’m not saying, nor did I say that Jesus was Buddha, Confucius, Zoroaster, Muhammad (not Allah, that is simply just the Arabic word for God), etc. I’m saying that Jesus may be your savior, because you believe that his heaven is where you’d like to go, and that his dad’s your creator. Just as other religions and philosophical viewpoints have their own creation stories, and they have their own beliefs about the afterlife. Personally, I believe that the reason why humans exist is because we were adaptationally advantageous to survival in a changing world. I believe that our nearest ancestors were Homo erectus, then Homo habilus, etc. Eventually, if you go back far enough in millions of years, you can trace us back to the first five fingered amphibian-like water creature who came out of the water long enough to start adapting to life on land. If you go back farther you would see we were complex cellular life, and go back farther we were single-celled organism. I believe with science we will further understand our universe and one day unlock the secret about how a bunch of atoms can become “living”. As for your experience with Oxycontin, I’m glad you kicked the habit. However, it is useful for healing from traumatic and surigical injuries.
My wife would kill me if I bashed on Christians
This one is for my Quote of the Day notebook! :)
Duck–
I understand where you’re coming from. My only point here is that only one of us can be right.
I LOVE Oxycontin. That’s why I’ll never go near it again. It was VERY useful.
Jack–Let me be someone who apologizes for the Christians who have hurt you. I would ask you to look at our Lord, Jesus Christ instead of his followers. We are an imperfect, sorry lot, and we get it wrong sometimes. I just ask Him to keep your heart soft and malleable.:)
Courtnay, under what logical assumption is it that only one of us can be right?
Courtnay, as an ex-opiate addict, I am very glad that you recognized your affinity for opiates and saved yourself a lot of grief.
Thank you for the well wishes.
When I say “you” I mean any other person whose religion that worhips another deity.
Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
He’s not saying He’s “a” way. He’s THE WAY. So if you embrace another belief system that claims other gods, then only one of us can be correct. Plus, you can’t really include me because my God claims SOLE divinity.
Either my shirt is blue or it’s white.
Either my pet is a cat or a dog.
Either my eyes are blue or they’re not.
Either Jesus is who he says he is or he’s crazy.
But you and I are at loggerheads if I say he is the only son of God and you say they could me many sons of God.
I’m not saying there are many incarnate sons of God. Btw, God is the name of your god. What I am saying is that Jesus saying the only way to my dad is through me, doesn’t exclude other religions, it excludes membership to his dad’s heaven except through him.
as for your either ors…
Your shirt could be blue and white, or neither
Your pet could be a cat, and then later on your pet could be a dog. Not that they are both at the same time, but that at different times in your life you had only one pet at a time, a cat, a dog, a fish, a rabbit, etc.
Your eyes could actually be blue and another color, or sometimes blue and sometimes grey, or hazel with a hint of blue, etc.
Jesus could be both who he says he is and crazy. He could also be neither who he says he is and not crazy.
^All are equally as plausible arguments, so making logical hypotheticals isn’t always sufficient to “prove” a logical argument.
All I’m saying is that belief in Jesus and his dad, does not exclude the existence of other gods nor religions. God himself said you shalt have no other gods before me. That doesn’t necessarily mean that other religions can’t and shouldn’t exist, but it would be very prudent to not worship God (again name for a particular god) and other gods.
Belief in Jesus does not equal only one correct religion.
Duck. Sigh. JC pretty much said he was the only one. I don’t know what else to tell you.
Oh, I know…one more thing. Abortion is pretty much always the killing of an innocent child.
Courtnay, biblical scholarship is a large part of my religious studies degree. I can assure you, that there is not a strict “I said no other religions exist except mine” passage anywhere attributed to JC. Anything he did say about religion can be attributed to his belief that if you want to get into my father’s kingdom of heaven, the gate is through me. That doesn’t automatically mean, nor should it, that other religions can’t exist.
You and I will always disagree on the abortion.
Duck,
Crime scene photos and aborted baby pictures are both evidence of murder. Putting graphic pictures in the public square is the only way some people will realize that these babies are also innocent victims. After 54 million victims, we need to see what “choice” really means. As for putting them in public, warning signs need to be placed first but people still need to see it and deal with the shock. The vicitims, both mothers and babies, have suffered far worse.
If there were warnings and ways for people to not have to look while out in public, then it wouldn’t be so bad. The problem is that does not happen.
There absolutely are warning signs placed before some displays! I have seen them myself.
Usually they are placed before ever coming upon a display
WARNING GRAPHIC ABORTION SIGNS AHEAD.
Courtnay: There is much validity for other religions. But there can only be the one that’s true.
Or of course – none at all.
Carla,
I will personally thank the protesters if I ever seen them use a warning graphic signs ahead style. They would get thanks and a high five, if they placed the warning within reasonable methods of them to not have to continue on that route. As of yet, I have never seen that, not that it doesn’t happen, just haven’t seen it yet. The first group I see it with, will get my thanks.
Most groups I imagine, both from conversations here and on the street with them, wouldn’t use them, because they specifically intend on shocking everyone.
Duck, I have a degree in religion myself. I found that it didn’t make me any smarter; in fact, my faith suffered for it. I also lived in a lay religious community right out of college where we prayed for 3 hours a day and worked in a homeless shelter. That didn’t help much either. To be honest, I found Jesus in the gift of being a mom. Having been blessed 3 times, I know the love of God.
The topic at hand:America needs to see the truth of abortion. We have sold our soul to the devil to insure the right for moms to kill their babies. Quit calling it a “procedure” and quit calling the severed limbs “products of conception.” It’s blood and it’s body parts, all laid out neatly at the altar of “choice.”
Well, America, this is what you chose.
Courtnay,
Congrats on working with the impoverished. I however, have found my faith improved with my religious degree.
To be literal for a moment, it is a procedure, and fetus is the product of conception.
That being said, that doesn’t mean that it’s not ok for people to have different views than you and be pro-choice.
as long as abortion is legal and they are done on my tax dollars i will be there with my choice of graphic signs! you cant take away my choice.
Duck—
finish the sentence. We’re not choosing hairstyles here. You are advocating choosing murder.
What if I were pro-choice about child sex rings? Animal abuse? Biological warfare? It absolutely matters what people think about these things, and if they are acceptable to you, then you are WRONG.
Get it? There’s RIGHT. And then there’s Wrong.
Choosing abortion is WRONG. For you. For me. Because we’re human.
Courtnay,
Well you can be “pro-choice” about anything you want. But that doesn’t make your attempt to bait me any less annoying.
That being said, we will still disagree, that doesn’t make me wrong, it doesn’t make you wrong, it doesn’t make me right, it doesn’t make you right. It makes us disagree.
Duck, please. Is there NOTHING in this world that you will stand up for and say I KNOW THIS IS TRUE. Anything at all? (besides the right for women to kill thier unborn babies)
“What if I were pro-choice about child sex rings? Animal abuse? Biological warfare? It absolutely matters what people think about these things, and if they are acceptable to you, then you are WRONG.”
I think that it’s hard to compare things that are illegal, that most people define as horrifying crimes, to something like abortion.
Alexandra put it well in a post a few weeks back, I think.
Abortion has been legal in this country for forty years. People have been raised and been trained that abortion is okay and a legitimate choice for forty years, and that’s just counting since it’s been legal, not including the decades where it was talked about and debated before it was legal.
If child sex rings and such were looked at as a possibly legitimate choice for that long, if my entire generation, and the generation before me, and the generation after me, had been told that it’s fine and legitimate choice, then maybe I could see the analogy. But since child sex rings and other crimes are loudly and rightfully condemned legally and morally within our society, it’s hard to compare that with something like abortion. Like it or not, it does make a difference. You and I certainly know abortion is wrong, but it doesn’t mean that other people will understand that or that someone supporting abortion is morally equivalent to someone supporting child rape.
Thank you Jack. That’s exactly right.
Which is why (back to our original topic) people need to see the graphic signs. Because abortion is on the same level as all those crimes I mentioned above, and we have done our nation’s women a great disservice by feeding them the bs idea that somehow you will be liberated by the right to kill your child before he is born.
Jack, why do you and I get it, but others don’t? Do we have better formed moral consciences?
I resent the implication that your moral conscience is better formed than mine. It’s just different. Abortion is not on the same level as those “crimes” mentioned before. It’s legal because it’s different.
You mean like slavery? When we as a nation knew better, we did better. The tide is turning. People are beginning to look at the pictures. LOOK. That’s a baby.
If you can’t recognize that in your heart, spirit, and mind (with all your religious training), then we aren’t merely different. Your willingness to equate the values of right life vs. the right to kill MEANS something. If you can’t see that, then we don’t really have much to talk about.
I merely asked the question, Duck.
No, not like slavery. Imprisoning the born is not ok.
“Jack, why do you and I get it, but others don’t? Do we have better formed moral consciences?”
Different experiences, different parenting, different wiring. I refuse to believe that like half of the population of the US is just broken. I believe abortion is completely wrong, yes. My experiences early in life, the way my brain developed, what I was taught, all that contributed to me coming to the conclusion that abortion was a human rights violation and is very wrong. Other people, with their different experiences, came to different conclusions. That doesn’t mean that they are evil or bad. It means they need to be educated and talked to, persuaded and convinced.
If you can’t see that sometimes life is about the differences between two beliefs rather than one must always be superior, then you are doomed to an ethnocentric life.
But taking away the rights (and the most basic, to keep living)from a certain demographic IS okay. Oops, I mean legal. Er…I mean different.
Ok, Duck. I guess when it comes to killing innocent human beings, I am ethnocentric. I’ve been called worse.
Ethnocentric I am going to call it a night and go see my husband and those 3 I let live.
Peace–
Glad you had the CHOICE to keep being pregnant and then birth Courtnay.
As the amateur designer of one of the billboards displayed in this article (Life. Just Say Yes.”), I have to say it was one of our two worst designs, before we had professional talent volunteering to help.
What most people don’t know is the restriction we work under with the billboard companies. Many refuse any advertising by a pro-life group. In our most recent negotiation, the company told us we could not mention “abortion” explicitly; we could not show a fetal image at all; we could not show an African-American baby unless we also showed a white baby (we were told that was “targeting” African-Americans); nearly all of our slogans that used “me,” “I,” or “my” to have the baby speaking for himself were rejected with comments such as “not family-friendly.”
At Let Me Live, we would not use an image of an aborted baby even if it were allowed by the billboard company, as our target audience is the abortion-minded woman, and we believe a positive appeal will win more hearts. But we like harder-hitting slogans when we have a company that will tolerate them.
Thanks for including one of our billboards, although I’m glad to say the ones we run now look a lot better. Thank you for the encouragement that even the somewhat cheesy billboards are getting more people to think of the unborn personally, as the individual people they are.
I notice the blogger, even after her “mea culpa”, still thinks her friend is too stupid to have come to his conclusion herself. She has to be stupid and weak, and”fooled” by these billboards, even though the friend said nothing about them influencing her thinking.
“Trust women” FAIL.
Just more proof that the pro-“choice” movement does not respect women at all.
Most people know that very, very few abortions have to do with late-term fetuses, and that a normal abortion does not involve anything like the pictures on the billboards, above. Those are born babies of weeks or months in age.
Malcolm, I don’t think that any of us think that abortion involves a baby that is developed as much as the babies in the billboards. We do know that the human that is killed in an abortion will eventually be as developed as those babies. We don’t make a difference in how we should treat the born baby versus the fetus.
Jack, I have heard many, many people react to the billboards and signs on the sidewalk with those types of criticisms. Not that they believe that 6 month old children look the same as a fetus, but that they think the pro-life crowd is trying to lie to people by using born children and saying, “look from the first second, your ‘baby’ looks like this”. It turns off a lot of people.
I don’t think that anyone is trying to say that the child looks like a newborn or three-month-old from the get go. I think we are trying to point out that it’s a human and deserves protection, using a picture of a baby is a good way to point that out. I also like the ultrasound pictures of unborn children, I think they make a good point. I don’t like the graphic ones, however.
Jack, I’m just telling you what average people who aren’t on either side of the debate have told me. That is the most frequent comment I hear. That pro-lifers are just trying to lie and sensationalize the issue. That’s what they say when they see the ‘baby’ pictures (ie born). When they see pictures of fetus with mislabeled scientific labels, then they complain that pro-life people are against science. When they use the gory pictures they complain that they’re trying to evangelize and guilt using photo style “fire and brimstone” techniques. I’m just saying.
I try not to judge other human beings by how they look. My mother taught me that when I was little.
Tara reminds me of the Wizard of Oz, yelling: “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
Del gave me a thought. Are there any signs with both a dead and a living baby that says: “HERE’S THE CHOICE!”
praxedes…..i love your post upstream. that is what i hope they feel!!!!!! lets put abortion in the history books. america will NOT reject abortion until america SEES abortion! yes the signs provoke emotion. its a mixed bag. rage at us anger confusion confrontation crying.
Malcolm and Duck,
Please post the authenticated photos you have of babies who have died in abortions along with their ages in weeks. Post or link or cite your sources. I want to see the real thing. I want you to share them with the class.
Put up or shut up.
Also, just what in the world do you think a developing child in the womb looks like??? Google fetal development. Then imagine that child chopped into pieces.
If you go to the top of the thread you will see the severed hands of a baby at 10 weeks that died in an abortion.
Also duck,
We are hardly moved by the criticism, the anger, the rage, the disgust or the opinions of those that are proabortion.
That should be pretty obvious.
Nothing will stop us from defending life from conception to natural death. NOTHING.
As a post abortive woman the graphic photos did not induce shame. The shame and guilt were already there. They produced a rage in me that I could hardly control. I would swear and scream and flip off the billboards!! (nice)
It is the same reaction I get when I stand with my I Regret My Abortion sign. Rage.
It stands to reason that those that are still trying to justify their abortion experience do not want to see the end result of that “choice.” A bloody and mutilated human being.
also id like to turn the question around and ask why do you have such a problem with my signs? did you play a part is someones abortion? did you have one? okay. i drove a woman to have an abortion. i knew another who had graves or addisons disease and told her shed be better off going to a hospital for her abortion. kaiser performed it. i did ask these women ahead of time if there was any way they could avoid their abortions. neither saw a way. i was anti abortion for myself but i didnt much care if another woman had one. okay and i also was a patient at planned parenthood for years. i took depo provera. many of us men and women on the sidewalks have done the same. my pastor was okay with his step daughters abortion. many men paid for their girlfriends abortions. we are not saints. we dont want you to make the same mistakes we have made. the signs work and the best feeling is when a woman sees the sign and she may still enter the clinic. BUT they come out and say “im not going to do this.” if one life is saved then it was well worth it.
hi carla…*waves* and how could i forget the silent no more ladies? they are the best voices of reason because they have aborted and one of my girlfriends out there aborted 22 years ago. she tells the girls “the pain never goes away.” our being there really does work!
hans great post…lol @ wizard of oz
Hi Heather!!! ::waves::
It has been 21 years for me. And no..the pain never goes away.
Duck and Malcolm,
Here is the link to the abortionist’s verification on the grapic abortion photos used by the Center for Bio-ethical Reform.(like the one used at the top of the thread)
http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/LevatinoLetterMay08.pdf
Thank you, Heather. Absolutely, Carla. As a post-aborted woman (41 years ago), my first experience with “I Regret My Abortion” sign in Aurora, the abortion workers were shocked w/total confusion because it was now personal. They didn’t know how to respond. Then the rage set in and they all started to laugh at me, but I didn’t care. As I noted in an earlier post, the more I tried to justify my abortion the worse I became. Hiding the pain, grief & shame, I even (temporarily) went into the medical field for a so-called quick medical fix (so I thought) but it didn’t help. I was just tyring to find a way to justify my abortion.
In the 60’s & 70’s, I fell into the same trap as many of my contemporaries, believing that feminism meant lowering my standards that many men have held instead of raising men’s standards that women have held for centuries.
Amen, Carol.
I am so glad that you are here!!
Also very grateful for all of the women and men who are SILENT NO MORE!!
Jack-
I hope that when my daughter finally learns the fate her father wanted for her when I was pregnant with her, she is able to deal with the information in such a way that she will be able to be the kind of wonderful person you are, despite what certain parents might’ve wanted for you both.
Carla-
I hope she is able to make use of her past experiences in such a way that her words become weapons destroying the abortion industry and a shield for future generations to be protected from the abortion meat-grinder. I hope she is able to wield them as adeptly as you do, yours.
Carla,
1)I don’t try to “convert” fanatics by telling them that their approach is flawed. Fanatics are fanatics for a reason. Jack is not a fanatic.
2)Do you really think every sign holding pro-lifer takes the time to make sure their fetal development signs are accurate? Man, you have must have never seen the homemade signs outside my local clinic.
3)Just because YOU didn’t experience shame because of the signs doesn’t mean they don’t cause shame in OTHERS. Just because YOU felt guilty and shamed for having an abortion doesn’t mean OTHERS do. While you can feel however you want, it gets a bit old hearing the assumption that just because you felt shame all women need to feel shame.
Here is the link to the abortionist’s verification on the grapic abortion photos used by the Center for Bio-ethical Reform.(like the one used at the top of the thread)
http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/LevatinoLetterMay08.pdf
Levantino is another famous convert to the pro-life movement. As such, his letter is questionable. Rather than this type of verification, what do non-biased scientific authorities say about the photos?
And re the signs – they are part of the anti-choice street theater and like any street theater (and advertising), they are meant to provoke a reaction. As Duck point out, reactions vary according to perspective. The folks who access our local Planned Parenthood see them, as do I, as a way to harass and intimidate those who use the clinic. No other patients at no other medical service buildings have to put up with the kind of “gauntlet” that women’s abortion clinic patients do. And the street theater does alienate more people than not while reinforcing the image of pro-lifers as crazed, religious zealots who hate women who are exercising their freedom of choice. (Right, they’re all coerced…)
Ah thanks X! :) I am sure your daughter will be great!
“Jack, I’m just telling you what average people who aren’t on either side of the debate have told me. That is the most frequent comment I hear. That pro-lifers are just trying to lie and sensationalize the issue. That’s what they say when they see the ‘baby’ pictures (ie born). When they see pictures of fetus with mislabeled scientific labels, then they complain that pro-life people are against science. When they use the gory pictures they complain that they’re trying to evangelize and guilt using photo style “fire and brimstone” techniques. I’m just saying.”
I think that some people may be uncomfortable with seeing a picture of a newborn, and knowing that just a few months earlier that same human wouldn’t have a shred of legal protection from harm, and I am okay with them feeling uncomfortable. I have stated my opinions on graphic photos like literally a million times, don’t think I am going to get into it again.
I do think, however, that a lot of people are going to be unhappy however us pro-lifers bring up abortion. I mean, if I went around giving talks about how my mother wanted me aborted, and how I was the same human inside her womb as I am outside the womb so I should have been legally protected in both instances, then a lot of pro-choicers would accuse me of emotional manipulation yes? No matter how kind or polite I came across. The fact remains we aren’t going to reach everyone, so we need to reach as many as we can while ignoring the people who will detract anyway.
Jack, I understand the point you made in your last paragraph. The paragraph of mine you quoted, I was refering to counter the many Pro-life people on the thread who have said what they think happens when they show those pictures, or what their intent was. I was stating how I have witnessed people actually react. That was all.
No, not every woman who gets an abortion is coerced by someone else, but too many of them are.
Duck,
1) I have no idea what you are talking about.
2) Someone draws an aborted fetus for their signs outside an abortion mill? Are we talking watercolor? Crayon? Pencil? Oil? Since we are from the same state I would very much be interested in a photo of this myself. So take a picture. And again. SHARE with the class. There are several graphic photos that are “standard” and used by many. Malachi is just one example of an aborted baby that is used in posters and signs. (Malachi was named after he was found in the freezer at an abortion mill and pieced back together by a doctor)
3) Where have I ever stated that ALL women feel like this or like that?? Please cut and paste. What part of I Regret My Abortion do you not understand?
Also, where have I ever said that ALL women feel what I have felt? Again. Cut and paste.
You know what is OLD? The same proabortion rhetoric. Do you honestly think you are saying something to me that I have never heard before?? Good grief. “Carla, not every woman feels the same way……..NO KIDDIN!!”
Malcolm, Duck and now CC,
I am asking for YOUR verified and authenticated graphic abortion photos with correct gestational ages of the fetus!! I want the links, I want the sites, I want the truth.
So stop playing around and point me to the REAL photos of REAL aborted babies!!!
Xalisae,
I will pray that for your daughter as well. No fear in drawing her sword of truth. Just like her mother.
And just so we are clear on this.
I totally and completely disagree with graphic abortion photos displayed outside abortion mills. That is not what women in crisis need to see. They need to see the love and care and compassion on the faces of those that might offer ANYTHING other than the killing of our own flesh and blood. They need to hear offers of help and support and free ultrasounds from those that will stand for LIFE!
Let a woman make her own moral choices about motherhood by obtaining all necessary information and services provided for unplanned pregnancies. It saddens me when the anti-lifers produce even more fear in women, as they do not trust them to make any sound choices by having additional information. They certainly have awareness of women who may be vulnerable, scared and doesn’t know where to initially turn, who may be in need of support & pregnancy counseling. Where’s the compassion or support for women by igniting more fear by the useless verbiage & prey on them by telling women that the quick-fix abortion is the only real option/choice. Do you not believe or fear yourself that women are capable of making any choices that will and/or could affect them the rest of their lives? Where is the freedom of choice in that? Oh, how I only wished that someone would have referred & assisted me to a crisis pregnancy center, taking the “choice” of true love with nine months of sacrifice for my baby, Paul, instead of 41 years of regret. My problem didn’t end with an abortion–it was only the beginning.
Informed consent, Carol.
Women need informed consent before abortion.
I never would have had one if I had only known the truth.
Proaborts like to paint women as empowered before and after abortion but weak and vulnerable and silly little fools that we take advantage of at Pregnancy Centers.
Waiting for the AUTHENTIC and VERIFIED graphic abortion photos.
::crickets::
By the way, Carla, I forgot to mention a thank you. I’m walking with my SNM sister and others side-by-side!
Absolutely, Carla–informed consent. Sorry, got emotional in my writing.
Thank you, Carla and Jack!
Carla-
Duck will be right back with those “Real” abortion pictures just as soon as she tells us what she thinks about Gianna Jessen. ;P
Carla,
#1) This was what I was talking about…
Carla says:
December 11, 2011 at 8:42 am
Also duck,
We are hardly moved by the criticism, the anger, the rage, the disgust or the opinions of those that are proabortion.
That should be pretty obvious.
Nothing will stop us from defending life from conception to natural death. NOTHING.
So I responded with this…
Duck says:
December 11, 2011 at 11:17 am
1)I don’t try to “convert” fanatics by telling them that their approach is flawed. Fanatics are fanatics for a reason. Jack is not a fanatic.
#2)I’m sorry, my camera has been broken for a couple months now. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE PHOTOS of those ridiculous signs I pass EVERY DAY on the bus ride home. Yes, they’re homemade, yes they’re ridiculous. So, you’ll just have to find them from another source, as I don’t get email updates from any of the pro-life groups in WI who are always taking pictures of their protests. The one guy in particular with his homemade signs pisses me off, cause he likes to leave his signs all over private property, and he bashes Jews while out on the street.
#3)True, you may not have said you think all women need to feel like you do. You do however with your tone and accusations about the “abortion industry” aka women’s reproductive health, make it seem that everyone is lied to and everyone should then feel guilty and shamed into making poor decisions. That just isn’t true.
As for the delayed response, my apologies, I was putting up Christmas decorations, cleaning my apt, and studying for finals.
Xalisae, clearly, you’re going to continue to beat a dead horse. Have fun with that.
I should clarify, I ride by that clinic on the bus everyday. The guy with the homemade signs is not there everyday. Just to be clear.
What about my comment at 6:51 (thread time) is necessary to make it waiting for moderation?
Links, Duck, automatic hold, now approved.
Thanks Jill for explaining. I didn’t know that. :)
1)Where did I call Jack a fanatic? Good grief. Still have no idea what you are talking about. I could care less what “comments” your people have about prolifers.
2)So you are not willing to put your money where your mouth is? Take the picture, upload it and prove it.
carla@jillstanek.com
3)I know the truth. I know the lies. Have you had an abortion? Do you know personally what that is like? I do. I know my story. And the stories of hundreds to thousands of post abortive women. Do you? Do you know their stories?
Links to the REAL abortion photos please?? Didn’t think so.
And now I bid you goodnight. I would rather talk to CC than to you. :)
Carla,
1) I never said you called him one. I was stating that someone who says what you quoted could be considered a fanatic. I was saying that Jack isn’t a fanatic. That was me.
2) I never said I didn’t want pictures of them. In fact I said the opposite. I said my camera is broken. Maybe you should re-read that.
3) You know the truth you want to know. There’s a TED talk about bias and evidence, you should watch it. You know the lies you want to know, again watch that clip. Have I had an abortion? No. Does that mean I don’t know personally what it’s like? Nope. I’ve got friends and family who have had them. I’d hope you know your story. You personally know the story of hundreds of thousands of woman who have had abortions? Are they documented somewhere? Or are you just assuming that many? Remember, I do process things literally. I know enough stories to know that neither you, nor I, is Right about the issue. Each woman deals differently with her own story and her own life.
As for the links, read #2, and while you’re at it, I’ll copy my previous #2 that you should re-read anyway since you accused me of the exact opposite of what I said.
#2)I’m sorry, my camera has been broken for a couple months now. I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE PHOTOS of those ridiculous signs I pass EVERY DAY on the bus ride home. Yes, they’re homemade, yes they’re ridiculous. So, you’ll just have to find them from another source, as I don’t get email updates from any of the pro-life groups in WI who are always taking pictures of their protests. The one guy in particular with his homemade signs pisses me off, cause he likes to leave his signs all over private property, and he bashes Jews while out on the street.
I should clarify, I ride by that clinic on the bus everyday. The guy with the homemade signs is not there everyday. Just to be clear.
Goodnight Carla.
To anyone/everyone,
Here’s that TED talk link I was talking about involving previous bias and evidence.
http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_battling_bad_science.html
It’s pretty good, you should watch it.
This link should be watched as well. By everyone.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
Still up.
I am the WI Leader for Operation Outcry.
I have filmed for the show Faces of Abortion and the documentary Life After Abortion.
Spoken at UW Madison. Spoken at St. Thomas.
I have attended the March for Life in Wash. D.C. and walked with Silent No More and Operation Outcry. Hundreds of us. Then listened to 3 hours of abortion testimony on the Supreme Court steps.
I have spoken with SNM for years.
I am a facilitator for Rachel’s Vineyard an abortion recovery weekend retreat.
Main speaker at a Banquet for Life in Oct.
I have attended workshops, conferences and had speaking engagements with post abortive women. My facebook friends include hundreds of post abortive women.
I have read THOUSANDS of stories of post abortion trauma and regret.
So. I have credibility enough to say YES I know of what I speak. I have studied. I have listened. I have spoken.
I will continue to speak out about the abortion industry and abortion and the effect of my abortion on my life. Nothing will change that. Certainly not your opinion about it.
Um… Jack may not be a fanatic, but Jack agrees with Carla that nothing would be able to turn him away from being pro-life.
I don’t think that being steadfast in a belief necessarily makes you a candidate for fanaticism. You and CC, the other pro-choicers have said that you will never become pro-life, yes? Does that not make you fanatics under that specific definition?
I think that people sometimes mistake emotional investment and language for fanaticism, which might be happening here.
I think fanatics are the ones who refuse to dialogue at all, are “ends justify the means”, and that type. I don’t consider Carla a fanatic, I consider her passionate.
fa·nat·ic
?
1.
a person with an extreme and uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics.
Synonyms
1. enthusiast, zealot, bigot, hothead, militant. Fanatic, zealot, militant, devotee refer to persons showing more than ordinary support for, adherence to, or interest in a cause, point of view, or activity. Fanatic and zealot both suggest excessive or overweening devotion to a cause or belief. Fanatic further implies unbalanced or obsessive behavior: a wild-eyed fanatic. Zealot, only slightly less unfavorable in implication than fanatic, implies single-minded partisanship: a tireless zealot for tax reform. Militant stresses vigorous, aggressive support for or opposition to a plan or ideal and suggests a combative stance. Devotee is a milder term than any of the foregoing, suggesting enthusiasm but not to the exclusion of other interests or possible points of view: a jazz devotee.
Carla,
Thanks for being literal and clearing that up for me :)
No, we will probably never agree.
Jack,
I usually say I’ll likely always disagree. I will probably remain pro-choice because of my own logical and moral viewpoints, however, I will likely always disagree with the Radical Right.
btw, many sports fans are fanatics. Being a fanatic isn’t necessarily bad. It just is what it is.
Isn’t “fan” short for fanatic? I guess I’m a fan/fanatic (and happy to be so) for pre-born human life!
Doe, fanatic was defined, but it contains links, so it’s waiting for moderator approval.
When someone has had an abortion they know personally what it is like to have an abortion. To know someone that has had one is to not know personally what it is like to have one. Make sense?
I hate to pile on the homework, Duck but the Silent No More website has THOUSANDS of abortion stories to read. 1,430 to be exact. I have read them. I am hardly alone in my thoughts or feelings about my abortion experience.(btw My daughter who died that day is named Aubrey. Yes, she has a name)
http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.aspx
We are just trying to get you up to speed here. Don’t want you falling behind the class.
Oh, and I have also read the stories on I’m Not Sorry.
Well, I admit that I am a FOOTBALL FANATIC, even though my team is lousy this year. Anybody see Tebow’s comeback victory yesterday? He is just getting better and better.
I notice the blogger, even after her “mea culpa”, still thinks her friend is too stupid to have come to his conclusion herself. She has to be stupid and weak, and”fooled” by these billboards, even though the friend said nothing about them influencing her thinking.
I’ve always wondered about our opposition’s accusation that we do not trust women to make decisions about their bodies, that we are disrespecting the decision-making abilities of women, but yet prolife billboards and especially crisis pregnancy centers are such a THREAT to them that they have to be taken/closed down. I still would like to know what part of ABORTION ALTERNATIVES don’t women understand. Look in the phonebook and you will see that CPC’s are listed under the ABORTION ALTERNATIVES section. I believe this is the law in most states. It’s clear that these agencies do not offer abortion or refer to them. And apparently the courts in New York, Baltimore, and Austin agree.
Don’t like the billboards? Don’t look at them.
Finally… the frenzy (in my part of the world) abates for a few moments!
Jack wrote, in reply to Courtnay (on Dec. 10):
[Courtnay]
“What if I were pro-choice about child sex rings? Animal abuse? Biological warfare? It absolutely matters what people think about these things, and if they are acceptable to you, then you are WRONG.”
[Jack]
I think that it’s hard to compare things that are illegal, that most people define as horrifying crimes, to something like abortion.
Well… I’m afraid that begs the original question, and Courtnay specified that she was calling abortion (as well as the other items listed) “wrong”, not simply “illegal”. It is currently illegal for a 15-year-old resident of most USA states to drive a motor vehicle on a state highway; but there is nothing intrinsically evil about it. Alternately, it used to be illegal for a white man to marry a black woman in the United States (and many other areas of the world), or to sell alcohol (in the days of Prohibition), or to engage in homosexual sex. Appeals to the legality of this-or-that don’t settle the issue at all, since it is quite possible to enact a bad/evil law. I trust you won’t disagree with that, at least?
Duck, Courtnay is referring to the principle of non-contradiction, which is an iron-clad and true principle in basic logic (i.e. two mutually exclusive claims cannot possibly be true at the same time; at least one such claim must be false).
For instance: it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Jesus (as portrayed in the Gospels) claimed to be the only Way, Truth and Life, and that no one can come to the Father except through Him (cf. John 14:6); it is also beyond all reasonable dispute that He, speaking as a Jewish man to a Jewish audience, framed this within the Jewish world-view about God (i.e. that there is only One God, one Heaven, etc.). You are certainly free (both logically and legally) to reject His claim; but there is no logical way for you to maintain that His claim is in any way compatible with claims of “other heavens, other gods, other ways to get to those heavens, etc.”, since the axioms of Judaism (and Christianity holds them, as well) expressly forbade those. So, if you like, Courtnay’s claim would look a bit like this, if it were padded with qualifiers and details to the point of pedantry:
1) Jesus accepted (and, in fact, CREATED) the religious axioms of Judaism (i.e. utter monotheism; God Who created everything in existence, ex nihilo; “heaven” = nick-nake for the state of being united to that One God (and with His children) perfectly and completely, in an inexpressibly loving and fulfilling union, forever, etc.).
2) In that context, Jesus claimed to be the Only Way to the Only Father (and to the only Heaven, since Heaven = complete union with that One God and His children).
3) Any claims which state that there are alternate ways to the same Heaven, or alternate gods, or alternate ways to alternate heavens, all involve flat logical contradictions of Jesus’ claim (whether explicitly or implicitly), and they cannot co-exits with Jesus’ claim.
4) As such: it is logically coherent to say “I reject the claim of Jesus,” and it is logically coherent to say “I accept the claim of Jesus,” but it is not logically coherent to say “Jesus’ claim might be true, but I think the other contradictory claims might be true as well.”
Does that clarify?
Duck-
I’ll keep beating this “dead horse” until I get a response. I have a long memory, and I’m not going to let some pro-legal-abortionist off the hook with a simple “I’ll get back to you on that after I’ve had a chance to think about it”. I know your type. I’ve talked to hundreds of you. You won’t say jack about Gianna. None of you ever do. Just like you’ll never say jack about my daughter, and when prodded to do so, you finally come out, true colors blazing, telling me about how you don’t really care about her-never did-and you’re glad I had the “choice” to be able to legally kill her in utero.
Hi Duck,
When I posted, I didn’t see that you posted the definition of fanatic. I suppose, since the synonyms state the varying degrees of fanaticism, Cecile Richards, NARAL, and the other pro-abortion groups could be defined as fanatics also.
“Well… I’m afraid that begs the original question, and Courtnay specified that she was calling abortion (as well as the other items listed) “wrong”, not simply “illegal”. It is currently illegal for a 15-year-old resident of most USA states to drive a motor vehicle on a state highway; but there is nothing intrinsically evil about it. Alternately, it used to be illegal for a white man to marry a black woman in the United States (and many other areas of the world), or to sell alcohol (in the days of Prohibition), or to engage in homosexual sex. Appeals to the legality of this-or-that don’t settle the issue at all, since it is quite possible to enact a bad/evil law. I trust you won’t disagree with that, at least?”
Oh, I wasn’t making an argument that abortion was “more okay” based on legality. I was making an argument that it’s difficult and doesn’t make sense to compare people today who argue for pro-choice to people like NAMBLA or people who beat animals. Our culture has roundly rejected pedophilia and racism as valid viewpoints for a long time, most people raised in our culture are told from day one that these things are awful, immoral, and they will be punished for acting on them. As opposed to abortion, where people are raised from the cradle being told that it is okay and legitimate. I can’t put people who argue for pro-choice on the same level as someone who argues to be able to legally to have sex with little kids, or torture animals, or lynch minorities. All of those things have been legal at one point in time, but our society has come to the point where those things are roundly condemned.
When it comes to abortion, yes, legal abortion is a bad/evil law (I don’t generally use the word evil for anything, though). Even though I find all those acts repulsive, just as I find abortion repulsive, I think that it’s much, much less understandable for people to argue for the horrible things that have been roundly condemned. That’s why I don’t sit around talking about how evil pro-choice people are, because they have been biased by society and their upbringing. It isn’t an effective way of debating to just tell them they are akin to kiddie rapists! It’s not that I remotely agree with their points, it’s that I understand that almost half of the US has been taught this way. Does that make more sense?
Ok, a bit for everyone here… :)
Carla, please feel free to email those lists, and I’ll add them to the reading wishlist. As for the personally affected part… Would the partner of the woman getting the abortion not be effected personally? Would the partner of a woman having a miscarriage not be effected personally? Would the partner of a woman who became pregnant not be effected personally? If you answered yes to any of those, then the assertion that only the woman can be effected would be false. Also, would the doctor of an abortion/miscarriage/pregnancy be effected? If not, then why does the pro-life side always try to get the doctors to “see it as it is”, to get them personally effected?
Paladin, Yes that does clear up what she was trying to tell me. However, I would also state, that not all Christians believe that the bible is literally inerrant, and so would/do interpret my assertions about Jesus and other religions as perfectly valid.
Xalisae, I’m sorry that other pro-choicers have left you feeling angry. You really do need to realize, I’m not like anyone else. Seriously. As for your daughter, I don’t recall you ever asking me about her. As for Gianna, I will give you an answer when I get to that reading list. I keep my word, and I take it seriously. I would appreciate it, if you’d lay off the chasing me across the threads with it. Your question will not be forgotten about.
Doe, Yes, I figured you hadn’t seen the definition yet, I was just putting it on the thread that it was waiting. But yes, many pro-choicers and many pro-lifers would be fanatics.
Jack, your post at 3:43 (thread time) is very articulate, and is a very accurate description of the moderate pro-life stance. Thanks.
Phillymiss, I didn’t see his comeback, because I can’t watch Bears games in Wisconsin usually. I’m a huge Bears fanatic. Not so happy about my team losing to the Broncos.
Hi Duck,
I asked you if you have ever had an abortion. Your answer was no.
If I would have wanted to know the answers to all sorts of those questions I would have asked you. If I wanted your opinion of miscarriage(I have had two)I would have asked you.
And sorry, but it is the proaborts such as yourself that claim abortion doesn’t hurt or affect ANYONE, least of all the woman having it.
I never said it doesn’t hurt ANYONE. I said that not all women are hurt. As for the first sentence, I must have misread you.
Scratch that, at 8:11 (thread time) yesterday (12/8) you did ask me both questions.
“Have you had an abortion? Do you know personally what that is like?”
That’s why I answered both.
I just want to say GO PACKERS!!
I married a man from Green Bay and I will be in the hallowed land of Wisconsin on the22nd! Hello Carla and Duck!
Thanks, Palladin, for clarifying what I was trying to say.
Duck, I never had a choice about my 3 kids, except in the moment I had sex with their father. They were my babies!! How you could ever look at my kids and say, You really had no right to be born. It’s a good thing your mom wanted you.
Whether I wanted them (and the one I miscarried) or not was immaterial; they were here and they WANTED to live.
Courtnay,
“I never had a choice about my 3 kids, except in the moment I had sex with their father.”
^Contradictory statement… I think I understood what you mean. Did you mean that your choice was whether or not to have sex?
As for coming to WI, I will not be cheering on the Packers, but welcome to the land of Mother Nature’s hot flashes.
We have suprise tickets for my 12 year old, Blaise: Packers vs. Bears on Christmas Night. If he doesn’t die from shock, it will be the best night of his life.
My choice to have sex with his (and Emmy and Payton’s —named after Walter Payton. LOL!)father necessarily meant accepting the consequences of having sex. All 3 were surprises (the only planned one died in miscarriage), and wildly welcomed, but if they had not been conceived in joy or expected or wanted, they still would by who they are, and still deserving of LIFE.
Courtnay,
Not gonna lie, jealous of the tickets. :)
While I disagree with the “necessarily”, obviously given our divergent views, thanks for clearing that up.
(*sheesh*) Terribly sorry, all… my comments will be rather sparse for the next week or so, I think; life over here is frantic, surreal, and rather explosive! For those who are of the praying persuasion, may I beg prayers for a whole host of people who’re getting hit with traumas, left and right? Thank you!
Duck wrote:
Paladin, Yes that does clear up what she was trying to tell me. However, I would also state, that not all Christians believe that the bible is literally inerrant, and so would/do interpret my assertions about Jesus and other religions as perfectly valid.
Well… that fact (which is true–some do believe the Bible to be errant) leaves room for those who deny that Jesus made such an exclusive claim, yes; but it does not leave room for any options other than the two that were mentioned by Courtnay (and you’re quite welcome, milady! :) ), namely: (a) Jesus is the only Way to the Only Father (and Heaven), or (b) He is not.
I’d also add that Christians who find the Bible to be “errant” do puzzle me; I wonder why, when they feel free to question or deny the sayings of Jesus that they find hard or challenging, they still feel quite confident in placing utter trust in the “pleasant” things that He did (e.g. existing, preaching the Golden Rule, healing the sick, rising from the dead, saying “Judge not, lest you be judged”–a very popular slogan of theirs, despite it being woefully misunderstood and mis-applied–etc.). If the only bits of the Bible that seem to be “true” are the bits with which one agrees, and the only bits of the Bible that seem to be “false” are the bits with which one disagrees, then whatever is the point in reading the Scriptures at all? They’re either false (if they disagree with you) or redundant (if they agree with you)!
Personally, I find it insanely improbable that I am so smart, infallible, etc., that every last thing which is “true” is something which also meets my personal tastes! The very definition of “repent/convert”, in fact, means to abandon what one likes in favour of what one might not yet like, but which is nevertheless true and necessary.
Duck:
Which part of my actions don’t necessarily accept the full weight and consequences of sex?
Paladin,
In my experience, I have come across a great many people who claim the bible is inerrent, but only pick and choose what they want to believe/enforce.
Courtnay,
We’ve discussed this before. Just because you chose to keep the pregnancy after having sex, doesn’t mean that every man and woman chooses to consent to pregnancy. But I’m too busy to spend all day on the thread re-arguing about it. So, we disagree, big deal. It happens a lot in a free country.
What other kind or type of actions do I consent to (where I know what I am choosing and I know what can happen if I do) where I am excused from the consequences?
You’re skipping one of the choices.
Choose to have sex or not have sex
Choose to use contraception or not use contraception
Choose to keep the pregnancy or end the pregnancy
Choose to raise the child after birth, or give up for adoption after birth.
They all build off the previous choice. Ie, each consequence is another choice. Just like in life.
You just keep skipping/forgetting the third one.
Courtnay, I didn’t know you kept your pregnancy! How long have you kept your pregnancy for? :)
Prax, that would explain this belly I just can’t seem to get rid of.
Duck, please answer the question.
Courtnay,
I did answer the question. Perhaps you need to re-read it?
WHAT OTHER TYPES.
You’re just talking about sex’s consequences.
What other types of actions where you don’t have to deal with consequences?
Sex makes babies. It doesn’t always, but it can and does often happen.
Drunk driving causes accidents. It doesn’t always, but it can and does often happen.
Wht must I be responsible for my decision to DUI but not having sex?
Jack wrote, in reply to my comment:
Oh, I wasn’t making an argument that abortion was “more okay” based on legality. I was making an argument that it’s difficult and doesn’t make sense to compare people today who argue for pro-choice to people like NAMBLA or people who beat animals. […] All of those things have been legal at one point in time, but our society has come to the point where those things are roundly condemned.
Well… at least from a logical point of view, it’s legitimate to compare abortion-tolerant people to those who fought against the eventual cultural condemnation of those things. I’m starting to suspect that there’s some confusion (and mistaken “blending”) of two different terms:
“Objective moral evil” means “that which is absolutely wrong, regardless of circumstances, opinions, or even awareness”.
“Culpability” means “the extent to which one is morally accountable or “blame-worthy” for committing an evil act (or, if you like, the extent to which an evil action is sinful, since a sin requires sufficient knowledge of the evilness of an act, followed by a free choice to do that act anyway).
I do not claim that every last person who procures an abortion is necessarily culpable; many women, for example, have been brain-washed into thinking that the child is “simply a clump of cells”, “a parasite”, “a tumor”, “an alien [not necessarily in the outer-space sense] invader”, etc. But I do claim that abortion is, in fact, an objective moral evil: it is always and everywhere an evil thing to do, whether or not a given participant is blame-worthy (due to ignorance, lack of freedom, etc.), and whether or not a given society recognized that objective fact. Things are either objectively evil, or they are not; it is simply impossible for something to be “intrinsically good or neutral” 400 years ago, while being intrinsically evil today. The only possible way that the passage of time (and the gradual change of cultures) can possibly change the morality of an issue is if that issue is only “relatively” good or evil.
An example of a “relative evil” would be the practise of driving 90 kph in a 70 kph speed zone, or of driving on the non-legal side of the road (e.g. the left-hand side, in the USA). There is nothing intrinsically evil about either practise: they are evil only to the extent that they violate a rightfully-enacted and just law. (Note: the general practise of violating any rightfully-enacted and just law IS intrinsically evil!)
As such: while it might not be reasonable to equate a post-abortive mother with (for example) a slave-trader who shot one of his slaves, it would be far more reasonable to compare vehemently pro-abortion activists with vehemently pro-slavery activists (neither of whom could be assured of being culpable: plenty of children were raised to believe that black people were property which could be damaged or destroyed at the will of the owner). I understand that this might excite a hostile reaction from the audience; but that (though undesirable, per se) is not reason enough to conclude that one has libelled/slandered/defamed them.
Even though I find all those acts repulsive, just as I find abortion repulsive, I think that it’s much, much less understandable for people to argue for the horrible things that have been roundly condemned.
However, one main point of this topic is the fact that such a “cultural consensus” (i.e. “round condemnation”) is constantly in flux, and cannot be assured of “sticking to its guns” on ANYTHING, no matter how outrageous it might seem to us. (That, by the way, is one of the fatal flaws with the use of any “it’s legal, so it’s right, and it’s wrong to fight against it” approach… as some abortion-tolerant individuals on this very forum have argued.)
Courtnay,
Every choice in life has a consequence. That consequence is another set of choices to make on how to deal. That choice has a consequence of sets of choices, and so on. From everything from which cereal to eat to what to do after a car accident to what to do after commiting burglary. It’s kind of like life is a giant flow chart.
Paladin, there are people on this thread who do not believe there is anything such as an objective moral evil. Well, unless you are a prolifer and want everyone to live.
It’s kind of like life is a giant flow chart.
Really? Well, no, because in your scary world, the unborn have no right to the choice nor the flow.
Courtnay,
It is like a giant flow chart. It starts at birth.
And, just because it scares you, doesn’t make my world scary.
Er… Duck: how, exactly, would you prove that your “flow chart” started at birth? I know of few new-born infants who can demonstrate “choices” (especially using what we’d call “free will”), as such. Would it not be more reasonable, by that standard, to wait until evidence of freedom and choice-making was evident, and allow the family to kill such children at any point before that, if they were deemed inconvenient in any way? As per Dr. Peter Singer, they’re not fully human persons, anyway…
Yes, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek… but I wanted to point out that your standards seem to be rather subjective and personal-taste-driven (i.e. setting the threshold of personhood at birth).
Yes, your world is scary. Because you have deemed a whole demographic of humans to irrelevance because your flow chart cannot allow kindness, self-sacrifice and humanity to guide your life.
What WAS that in my belly that was kicking and squirming in my belly on the way to the hospital? And why did my wanting her change his very essence? You will try, but you cannot answer me.
And, just because you won’t confer humanity on the unborn doesn’t make them any less human.
But Paladin, it’s all good because all choices are equal. Don’t be so JUDGMENTAL. Just agree to disagree. :)
Paladin, let me rephrase. Life is like a flow chart. Life begins at birth.
^Life as in Life+Birth=Personhood.
Courtnay, it was a fetus in your belly.
Duck wrote:
Paladin, let me rephrase. Life is like a flow chart. Life begins at birth. Life as in Life+Birth=Personhood.
Yes, you already said so; but I ask again: however do you prove that… especially since your idea of personhood seems (as per your comment 1:35 pm, 12-13-11) to be inextricably linked with the idea of making “choices”? Given that it’s a matter of life and death, it really won’t do to leave the issue to mere personal taste or rough guess-work, would it? The issue really does need to be confronted logically.
As has been discussed ad nausium on other threads, we have different views. We have different views because our philosophies are different. As I pointed out in the TED talks I linked on another thread, when confronted with evidence that diverges from your bias, you have two options. Change your bias, or disregard the evidence. Now, you may think I’m just too bullheaded to understand you. Not the case, I just disagree. And I disagree after being extremely middle of the road on this issue, and thinking about it from both sides, philosophy (ie morals), laws, science etc. In short, nothing I say or do, will “prove” to you what I have claimed. In fact, when I have made logical proofs of some of my claims, they have been disregarded on this site as not answering the question.
But it wasn’t a cow fetus or a rabbit fetus or a horse fetus, right? It was human, with a gender and expressions and toes and a heart and her own DNA! Hell, Duck, that was my daughter!!!!
But only because I said so?
Courtnay,
See my comment to Paladin about rehashing arguments, bias, evidence, etc. I’ve got more important things to do than repeat myself all day to you.
Paladin, we aren’t even really disagreeing fundamentally at all, I am just really bad at getting my point across. I don’t think that the circumstances of society changes the moral legitimacy of abortion, or anything else. If something is wrong or damaging, it’s wrong and damaging.
I do think that someone supporting slavery TODAY would be a much more culpable person, always, than someone supporting abortion today. Society doesn’t change the rightness or wrongness of an act, but it does play a huge effect on the people committing the act. That’s where I think that comparing the two causes more problems then it does help get our points about how wrong abortion is. I think we have a difference in the matter of approach, rather than much of a difference in a matter of how wrong abortion is.
Duck wrote:
As has been discussed ad nausium on other threads, we have different views.
I can’t reasonably argue with that! :)
We have different views because our philosophies are different. As I pointed out in the TED talks I linked on another thread, when confronted with evidence that diverges from your bias, you have two options. Change your bias, or disregard the evidence.
Hm. Do you think this is the case in, for example, mathematics? Suppose I believe that “2 + 2 = 4”, and you feel that “2 + 2 = 8”; is this really no more than a difference of opinion, in your eyes, with no possible way to find the “true” truth (i.e. objective truth) of the matter? If so, then every last instance where I lowered the score on the test of one of my students for mis-writing the quadratic formula was nothing more than my provincial, irrational bias (and an instance of gross injustice, on my part)… no better than had I marked their tests down for being blue-eyed!
Now, you may think I’m just too bullheaded to understand you.
I wouldn’t have put it that way, at all; there’s no need to attribute pejorative ideas to one who disagrees… but nor is there a need to despair of any possible quest for truth (i.e. fall back into absolute agnosticism about virtually everything).
Not the case, I just disagree.
Well… there’s a good deal of quiet, hidden meaning behind the innocuous-sounding phrase, “I just disagree” (as if disagreements were a matter of inconsequence, with no possible rational appeal to a standard beyond the disagreeing parties).
And I disagree after being extremely middle of the road on this issue, and thinking about it from both sides, philosophy (ie morals), laws, science etc.
I understand. But since I, too, have examined things many times over, only to find that I was mistaken about one or more aspects of it, I know that it is possible even for experts and/or experienced thinkers to err, even in matters dear to them. I do not, as a matter of course, attribute stupidity to those who disagree with me (or else I’d be a very wretched teacher, as well as a wretched man; can you imagine the classroom I’d have, if it were otherwise? *shudder*); but I also do not accept the idea that “utter moral relativism” is somehow superior or more logically sound than are its alternatives.
In short, nothing I say or do, will “prove” to you what I have claimed.
That depends. I’ll answer my own question (in part) from above, and say that there are two distinct types of proof: “a priori” (i.e. no data needed: mathematics and pure logic fall into this category, in which conclusions are deduced from earlier premises with 100% certainty, beyond ALL doubt), and “a posteriori” (i.e. sense-data is required in order to draw a conclusion: the social and physical sciences usually fall into this category, where conclusions are induced and demonstrated beyond all REASONABLE doubt, but which cannot be demonstrated with 100% certainty; it’s a “best guess”).
As for your case: if I can show that your position is logically self-contradictory, then I will know that your position is false, a priori. Failing that, if I can show that your position violates sane reason in order to maintain it (e.g. refusing to believe that your sibling exists, since he/she could be a vivid hallucination, etc.), then I will know that your position is false, a posteriori. The same holds for you, when examining my own position. Some head-way can be made in those directions, I think.
In fact, when I have made logical proofs of some of my claims, they have been disregarded on this site as not answering the question.
I can’t speak for anyone else… but I’d be happy to consider them (with an apology for making you recite them again, perhaps for the 20th time!). For my part, I assert that any position of “moral relativism” (i.e. belief that there are no objective moral principles by which we can judge the morality of our actions) always degenerates into utter solipsism (i.e. only you exist) or into logical incoherence (i.e. the one who believes it does not apply it consistently).
Paladin, that reminds me that before Thanksgiving you made an argument using math. Not my strongpoint, I’d have to refer to my friend the logic/math genius. Unfortunately though, he absolutely despises this page, so I doubt he’ll come on here to logic argue with you about it. I should see if he’d be willing though, but I make no garuntees.
As for the you and I rehashing it again, feel free to email me. I’d rather not be chased across threads for issues of discussion between two people, or take up the news feed here.
Watch the ethnocentrism there, Paladin.
Jack wrote:
Paladin, we aren’t even really disagreeing fundamentally at all, I am just really bad at getting my point across. I don’t think that the circumstances of society changes the moral legitimacy of abortion, or anything else. If something is wrong or damaging, it’s wrong and damaging.
All right. But another issue remains: how does one decide whether society has arrived at a “good conclusion”? A simple societal consensus settles nothing, since any moral outrage can gain acceptance through a solid programme of brain-washing, propaganda, social pressure, ignorance, collective stupidity, selfishness, and the like.
I do think that someone supporting slavery TODAY would be a much more culpable person, always, than someone supporting abortion today.
And here’s the main point, I think: HOW do you know that society’s current condemnation of slavery is, in fact, morally good and just? How do you know that you haven’t been swept away by the enthusiasms and “group-think” pressures of a society gone terribly awry? (I know of at least one holocaust-denier in my area, in fact, who refuses to believe that the Shoah happened… mainly because her deceased father [whom she loved] was an S.S. officer who taught her thusly, and her fierce desire to be loyal to her father blocks her from all input to the contrary, including the face-to-face testimonies of holocaust-survivors!) The mere fact that you agree with the majority of society on this point would only be convincing if you could, somehow, prove that society, always and everywhere, trends infallibly toward the better and better good!
Society doesn’t change the rightness or wrongness of an act, but it does play a huge effect on the people committing the act.
It does… but it begs the original questions (i.e. is society right, and am I right in agreeing with society, and has society reached a true and right conclusion yet [as opposed to having to wait for another 100 years]? Etc.). In fact, the very idea of thinking that “society always tends toward the better and better good” makes no sense at all, unless one has a standard outside of society by which society’s “moral progress” can be measured! Think of the challenge of deciding whether a meter-stick was, in fact, long enough, by comparing it to other meter-sticks which were made FROM it!)
In short: unless there is some objective, unchanging standard (above and beyond current societal norms and consensus) by which we can judge what is “morally better” and “morally worse”, then there is no way to judge (save through utter personal taste and raw opinion… which are rather wretched and unreliable standards!) whether it is better to evolve AWAY from (for example) slave-holding, or TOWARD it! The same applies to the issues of abortion, euthanasia, and every last moral issue known to man.
Courtnay wrote:
Watch the ethnocentrism there, Paladin.
(?) Er… could you clarify? (I’m feeling rather foggy-headed, partially from some sleep-deprivation, so please excuse me if I’m missing something utterly obvious!)
It’s one of Duck’s words. If you believe in objective truth, you’re ethnocentrist, which I think , has something to do with being INTOLERANT, JUDGMENTAL AND CULTURALLY MYOPIC. Which, if you’re pro-abortion, is the worst thing EVER.
“All right. But another issue remains: how does one decide whether society has arrived at a “good conclusion”? A simple societal consensus settles nothing, since any moral outrage can gain acceptance through a solid programme of brain-washing, propaganda, social pressure, ignorance, collective stupidity, selfishness, and the like.”
All those things can happen. And do, even if your concept of objective moral truth is completely correct. The fact that there may be objective moral truths doesn’t change the fact that society still functions that way. Those of you (us? I am not sure that I believe in objective morality, but I don’t discount it at all, I am still learning) who believe in objective morality should certainly try to structure society around the objective truths, but it doesn’t mean that it’s going to work. It does make a good point to work towards though.
I tend to think in a kind of utilitarian way, if that makes sense? I don’t natural think about the intrinsic good or evil of actions, I tend to look at their effects and base my opinions of them on that. I before you say so, yes, I realize that is a horribly wishy-washy way to view morality, but I have never found a way to divorce myself of the cause and effect school of thought. It’s hard for me to actually care, at all, about an issue where I cannot see consequences. I do appreciate your points on objective morality, but I cannot seem to get myself to think that way.
Courtnay,
Paladin isn’t being ethnocentric. He’s not saying there’s a universal truth that just happens to be what I believe so there.
Paladin,
She’s trying to use one of the terms I’ve used on here before. I used it when stating that those who say stuff along the lines of my belief is this, and my belief is natural (natural means born, innate, genetic) and all others should believe me or be wrong… are ethnocentric. Beliefs are not like that, they’re cultural. She just seems to have misunderstood.
Yes, Duck. Killing of the innocent and our revulsion to it is one of the things that most of us humans agree on. It’s what MAKES us human. Yes. What happened with you?
Courtnay,
Have you studied how all the cultures react to various forms of death and killing? So can you conclusively say that what you said is true?
No, I am talking about innocent life and the taking of it. Not “various forms”.
But if you want to compare ancient child sacrifice to modern-day abortion, I’d be happy to go down that road with you.
Courtnay,
Hmmm… I’m pretty sure that “innocent life and taking of it” counts in the “various forms of death and killing”. So, either you’re familiar with all the cultures, or you’re not. If you’re not, you’re superimposing your personal belief onto the worldwide community, and that just isn’t the case.
Some people don’t find the world at all scary because they are a big part of the scary part.
Sex makes babies. It doesn’t always, but it can and does often happen.
Drunk driving causes accidents. It doesn’t always, but it can and does often happen.
What must I be responsible for my decision to DUI but not having sex?
Courtnay, if anything “happens,” i.e. conception with the sex and an accident and/or getting in trouble with the DUI, then there’s no “getting away from responsibility” in either case.
If you wrecked your car, do you want to remedy the unwanted situation (the lack of a car) and fix it or get another one? Very probably. Likewise, if the pregnancy is unwanted, some people will choose to have an abortion to remedy the unwanted situation there. If not, then things “must still be dealt with,” i.e. you’re gonna have to take care of a baby.
Doug. Too many Guinesses last night? I am not talking about material wreckage. I am talking about the HUMAN wreckage.
You somehow have drawn a line around one group of humans whose lives can be sacrificed for the “betterment” of others. Abortion as remedy? This one group, Doug. They will require an explanation from you one day.
You agree to the possibility of a baby when you have sex. Not preganancy. BABY. Don’t protest, that’s not what you intended or wanted. THAT”S WHAT YOU AGREED TO.
You agree to the possibility of death and prison if you drink and drive. Don’t act surprised when it happens.
We have different views because our philosophies are different. As I pointed out in the TED talks I linked on another thread, when confronted with evidence that diverges from your bias, you have two options. Change your bias, or disregard the evidence.
Oh. THAT is why Duck always makes this statement when challenged with evidence. She’s trying to let us all know that she’s disregarding it in favor of her bias. It all makes sense now! ^_^
Doug:
Are you implying that it is good to have a remedy to anything simply because it is legal? Like, if there were a program in place where instead of being charged/going to jail/losing your license for a DUI (justice), you could “remedy” the situation by a legal “bribe” or fee to a certain police officer or judge in lieu of being brought to justice? Would you support that?
Because that would be a more accurate analog to sex/pregnancy/birth or abortion. It would be drinking and getting drunk/driving/caught by the police and charged with DUI or bribing the official through a “fee”.
Wht must I be responsible for my decision to DUI but not having sex?
If you’re talkin’ about legal penalties, it’s because DUI is a crime, Courtnay.
Doug wrote:
If you’re talkin’ about legal penalties, it’s because DUI is a crime, Courtnay.
Doug, I’m sure you already know that the current legality (or illegality) of any given action is a mere accident of culture? No one can reasonably argue that “it’s legal; therefore, it must be morally right!” That would presuppose the idea that the law-making government is morally infallible… which, at least in all human governments of which I’m aware, is absurd.
Surely you also know that Courtnay was not speaking of “responsible” only in the sense that a particular government imposes sanctions, but was instead speaking of our moral obligation/responsibility to “own” our actions and accept all attributable consequences? Otherwise, you would be arguing that (for example) child rape is quite all right, so long as the government is willing to make it legal, or at least to turn a blind eye to it!
Jack wrote, in reply to my comment:
[Paladin]
“All right. But another issue remains: how does one decide whether society has arrived at a “good conclusion”? A simple societal consensus settles nothing, since any moral outrage can gain acceptance through a solid programme of brain-washing, propaganda, social pressure, ignorance, collective stupidity, selfishness, and the like.”
[Jack]
All those things can happen. And do, even if your concept of objective moral truth is completely correct. The fact that there may be objective moral truths doesn’t change the fact that society still functions that way.
Of course not… any more than the existence of fire safety regulations would change the fact that people are still going to get burned; but surely you can see that the regulations are still important, and not simply a matter of indifference?
But more to the point: when you or I speak of a “good conclusion”, I assume that the phrase actually means something… and that it isn’t just a euphemism for “what I happen to want”, yes? But in order for the phrase to mean anything, we need some sort of objective standard by which to judge “goodness” or “badness”. In order for us, for example, to judge child rape to be “evil/bad/undesirable” (rather than simply against our personal tastes… like one’s aversion to olives or Swiss cheese, for example), we need to have some ideal against which child rape falls (very far) short. Does that make sense?
Those of you (us? I am not sure that I believe in objective morality, but I don’t discount it at all, I am still learning) who believe in objective morality should certainly try to structure society around the objective truths, but it doesn’t mean that it’s going to work.
:) Well… as Blessed Mother Teresa once said: “God doesn’t call us to be successful; He calls us to be faithful.” Morality is dependent on one’s choices, not on the fact that our choices may be thwarted by dynamics beyond our control; it would be rather silly, for example, to hold a tuna company morally accountable for the death of someone who opened a (perfectly well-sealed) tin of tuna, let it spoil, ate it, and then decried (with his dying breath) the folly of the company which “tried to keep out spoiled tuna by their sealing apparati, only to fail”! We cannot be held morally accountable for the sins of others (save to the extent that we enabled them, encouraged them, etc.).
I tend to think in a kind of utilitarian way, if that makes sense?
I think I understand what you mean (though “utilitarian” has many flavours, as it were); but I assert that the “moral utilitarian” view (i.e. something is morally evil to the extent that it causes pain; something is morally good to the extent that it promotes pleasure) is not only baseless, but self-contradictory… and the variant of utilitarianism which values actions solely based on their consequences is not only self-contradictory, but question-begging (i.e. you’d need a standard by which to evaluate those very consequences as “good” or “bad”).
[…]before you say so, yes, I realize that is a horribly wishy-washy way to view morality, but I have never found a way to divorce myself of the cause and effect school of thought.
Actually, you don’t need to divorce yourself from cause and effect, at all! You do, however, need to recognise that every last judgment you already make is based on some sort of objective standard; otherwise, your position would degenerate into sheer nonsense.
It’s hard for me to actually care, at all, about an issue where I cannot see consequences. I do appreciate your points on objective morality, but I cannot seem to get myself to think that way.
That’s something of a universal human trait, actually: it’s difficult for us to be motivated (especially if our sole motivations are emotions/feelings) about something which doesn’t seem to affect us. I, for example, am much more motivated to sympathise with leukemia patients, since I am a leukemia survivor, myself. But there is such a thing as discerning a moral code (based on objective truth, and not based simply on personal taste) and acting on it, even if those codes have not been confirmed by personal experience. I have not died from poison, for example; but I still abstain from poison, despite never having suffered its effects and gained an emotional aversion to the pain/illness. I have not lost a limb through deliberate self-mutilation; but I still refrain from self-mutilation, despite the fact that I have not yet suffered the frustration and pain of going through life without a limb. We would be rather pitiful creatures, I think, if we were limited to forming rules/laws only about things which happened to us, personally! :)
I do know that if you use gory aborted baby pictures (google ‘abortion pictures’ and blow them up to 3×3 foot or so)to scare business away at abortion mills, people will come back and say “Thanks for showing those horrible pictures. They disgusted me into saving my baby here 5 years ago. I don’t know what I would have done if I had killed my baby.” Also, some see them and drive away without getting out of their cars, while others come out of the abortion mill after 10 minutes inside to say “Thanks for reminding me how horrible abortion is. We’re keeping the baby.” Along the way other people will be mad at you, but that’s just the guilt of abortion-murderers speaking because they know what they are guilty of.
Courtnay: Doug. Too many Guinesses last night?
No. That really could NEVAH happen. ;)
___
I am not talking about material wreckage. I am talking about the HUMAN wreckage.
Both are consequences, sometimes.
____
You somehow have drawn a line around one group of humans whose lives can be sacrificed for the “betterment” of others. Abortion as remedy? This one group, Doug. They will require an explanation from you one day.
Not everybody has the same beliefs as you, Courtnay.
____
You agree to the possibility of a baby when you have sex. Not preganancy. BABY. Don’t protest, that’s not what you intended or wanted. THAT”S WHAT YOU AGREED TO.
Aside from arguing “baby or not,” yeah, there is that possibility, sure, but that’s not the same thing as agreeing to remain pregnant.
____
You agree to the possibility of death and prison if you drink and drive. Don’t act surprised when it happens.
You’re choosing an example where the action is already illegal. We don’t put women in prison or execute them for getting pregnant. However, I agree that people “should not be surprised when they get pregnant,” most of the time. Likewise, people should not be surprised that some others have abortions when the pregnancy is unwanted.
“If you’re talkin’ about legal penalties, it’s because DUI is a crime, Courtnay.”
Paladin: Doug, I’m sure you already know that the current legality (or illegality) of any given action is a mere accident of culture? No one can reasonably argue that “it’s legal; therefore, it must be morally right!” That would presuppose the idea that the law-making government is morally infallible… which, at least in all human governments of which I’m aware, is absurd.
Courtnay asked why she must be responsible for DUI. It’s because society made it illegal and it’s society saying she is responsible. Does it *have* to be that way? No. But it is that way. I agree (of course) that what is legal won’t be necessarily seen as moral by a given person or group.
____
Surely you also know that Courtnay was not speaking of “responsible” only in the sense that a particular government imposes sanctions, but was instead speaking of our moral obligation/responsibility to “own” our actions and accept all attributable consequences? Otherwise, you would be arguing that (for example) child rape is quite all right, so long as the government is willing to make it legal, or at least to turn a blind eye to it!
Well, it really is government saying that DUI is a crime. And here – that abortion is not a crime, at least early enough in gestation. I don’t necessarily agree with all DUI laws. Seems nuts to me to have a .08% legal limit for blood alcohol when many people can drive just fine there, and all the while we don’t treat people who talk on the phone or text while driving in a similar way. I certainly would not argue for child rape on the basis of a gov’t that said it was legal. I don’t think many people would, period.
It’s hard to know what difference the cherub pictures make. But I know from experience that if you google ‘abortion pictures’ and get gory photos from http://www.100abortionpictures.com and the others, then make 3×3 foot posters out of them at the local copy center, they can save lives at abortion mills. When the intending murder-moms see the pictures, those with hard hearts, raging guilt, and no conscience won’t be affected any more than a Nazi guard at Auschwitz. But when a thinking desperate intending murder-mom sees the pictures, she will pull out of the parking lot and never come back. She may go inside, think for 10 minutes, then come out to say “I hated those pictures when I went in, but they made me think– we decided to keep the baby.” Other women will stop by from the street to say “Thank you for showing those horrible pictures. You taught me to save my baby 5 years ago, and I’m so glad you did because he’s the joy of my life.” This happens a small percentage of the time considering America’s degenerate status, but every life saved is a life saved.