Stanek weekend question: Is it time to change pro-life tactics?
UPDATE 5/6, 6a: Dustin has emailed me a link to a clarification he wrote of his original post, here.
5/5, 11:53: Dustin Siggins, associate producer with The Laura Ingraham Show and co-author of a forthcoming book about the national debt, authored a piece that piqued my interest in CrisisMagazine.com on May 1, “Time to change pro-life tactics?”
I usually don’t post my opinion when asking weekend questions but frankly, Siggins’ op ed ticked me off, and I can’t contain myself.
First, just about all of his premises were wrong. Second, he caricatured/generalized pro-lifers, just as someone on the Left would. Third, I wondered at points which pro-life movement Siggins was looking at. He does not appear to be involved in pro-life activism. He wrote like an uninformed outsider who certainly doesn’t have his finger on the pulse of the movement.
Against that backdrop I give you his thoughts. Feel free to disagree with me….
On April 16, [Mississippi’s] new governor signed legislation that “requires all physicians at abortion clinics in Mississippi to be board-certified OB-GYN and to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.” This is both a victory and a “teachable moment” for the pro-life movement.
What is so significant is that the pro-life legislation passed in Mississippi (and similarly in Virginia) was made as fool proof as possible from the demonizing tactics of the left. The pro-life movement should emulate these successful principles and move away from those that are not working. For example, ultrasound legislation can be deemed as guilting mothers into not aborting their children or invading personal privacy. However, it is more difficult to argue against raising the standards of medical clinics so that women have a more sterile and professional environment….
There are four other things pro-lifers should keep in mind that are tangentially related to the lesson Mississippi has provided, and which are directly related to converting a culture that is largely indifferent regarding abortion:
- Stop using Biblical arguments to debate abortion. After attending the 2010 March for Life, I do not think using religious arguments will persuade either self-described Christians who agree with abortion or non-Christians who agree with abortion. The science of life is in our favor, and we should emphasize this. This is not meant as a denigration or repudiation of religious work or prayer done to protect life – I am a strong Catholic participating in prayer protests before abortion clinics – but a practical recognition of living in a pluralistic society with many people who do not possess a Christian-based belief in the sanctity of unborn life.
- Do a better job of educating people about the responsiblilty [sic] that comes with sexual activity and explain better the help and care that can be provided so women will not feel as though abortion is their best or only option. I supported Indiana governor Mitch Daniel’s position of reforming and shrinking the federal welfare state as it is a critical piece in taking away incentives to act irresponsibly.
- Shock and awe have their place, as does presenting difficult truths, but indiscriminately throwing up images of dead babies and similar tactics as employed by Randall Terry will cause most people to simply turn and look in the other direction. Again, the majority of Americans are pro-choice, pro-abortion, or indifferent to the debate and just want it to go away. Used correctly, the shock and awe strategy can be effective, but often less so than engaging in a strong, purposeful, respectful discussion.*
- Stop making abortion about women vs. children. Both are victims. Every time a pro-life activist blames a woman for having an abortion, that activist should in the same breath blame the men who get women pregnant and then either abandon them or encourage them to abort the child. We should make the battle about protecting women and unborn children from the abortion centers whose livelihood depends on the murder of children.The unfortunate fact is that we live in a nation where abortion is legal, and much of the public either favors it or is neutral on the debate. Undue focus on the women involved makes it even easier for supporters of abortion to successfully claim a false “war on women,” which makes creating a culture of life that much harder.
The pro-life movement is gaining ground, and the desperation of the pro-abortion left after the temporary decision by Komen to defund Planned Parenthood is indicative of this. However, if we continue to make the kinds of tactical errors disucssed here, millions of babies will die before America becomes a culture of life instead of a culture of death. The pro-life movement must adapt its strategies appropriately, and soon, in order to protect as many mothers and unborn children as possible.
*The first sentence of this bullet point originally was, “Get people like Randall Terry out of the movement,” which was subsequently deleted. As Adam at Caffeinated Thoughts wrote in an excellent analysis of Siggins’ article, “I’d gladly trade twenty armchair quarterbacks like Mr. Siggins for one Randall Terry.”
[Photo via Caffeinated Thoughts]
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 actuallly agree with most of what he said, with the exception that it is probably good to use Biblical arguments with Christian pro-choicers. Other than that, the religious arguments dont really work.
I agree, Miss Stanek, that it seems as though Mr. Siggins is a little out of touch with the pro-life movement, or at least that his experience with the movement is greatly sheltered. If is, indeed, “a strong Catholic participating in prayer protests before abortion clinics”, then great! But, he may need a broader perspective on the movement nationwide and, for that matter, worldwide.
However, to speak to your question, Miss Stanek, I do think that some changes are in order for how we fight the pro-life fight. Most everyone has heard the stir created over the Personhood sub-movement. If you haven’t, or don’t really know much about it, please visit the Personhood USA website and even look there for a website for your state. I agree with limiting abortion availability… kind of. The truth is, that if we pass and/or support a law or regulations saying that such and such has to occur before an abortion takes place, we are still saying that an abortion can take place. Unless there is a genuine threat to the mother’s life, abortion is never the answer. This is a truth that the Personhood movement/amendments seek to have recognized in law. You will never, ever find me fighting against an informed consent, ultrasound, waiting period, etc law, but I genuinely think it is passed time for the pro-life movement to earnestly pray about and for Personhood and get behind states’ efforts to pass laws or amendments recognizing the personhood of the unborn child. Thank you.
I agree with Jack as well. I come from a very pro-choice family, and the current tactics are making people turn off more and more. I concur with Siggins in that the tactics need to change.
I don’t necessarily agree with Mr. Siggins on all points, but I do think the pro-life movement needs to make a few changes. I agree that it’s very difficult to alter a person’s point of view about abortion when you can’t alter their lack of belief in God. Using scripture to talk an unbeliever out of terminating a pregnancy is like someone pointing to the Koran to make an argument to me. I don’t agree with those principles, so I’m not going to care or listen to arguments made from that book. Because I’m a Christian, I wholeheartedly believe in scripture, but using it with a nonbeliever won’t change their mind, unfortunately.
The place where I believe we will gain ground and finally see the end of abortion is by making people see that women are profoundly affected by abortion — maybe not within the week or even decade of an abortion, but they are affected.
According to my research, 50% of women who have had an abortion experience acute feelings of grief, eating disorders, depression, anger, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, increased alcohol and drug abuse, anxiety, and flashbacks of the abortion procedure lasting for months or even years after the abortion. Women who have an abortion face a 248 percent greater risk of suicide, accidental death or homicide within a year of the abortion, according to a 13-year Finnish study.
But I know I’m preaching to the choir! You and I are familiar with these ramifications. People need to understand that once the abortion is over, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers wash their hands of these poor women. They are leaving women alone to deal with the grief and consequences of their choice. The pro-life community cannot be like them! Somehow we need to shift the focus from “She’s a child not a choice” to this lack of care and follow thru. This is the true War on Women!
Please don’t misunderstand me, I am horrified at the idea of abortion and I’ve dedicated my life to assisting teens who are facing an unplanned pregnancy. But my opinion is that in order to gain ground with the people who don’t see a child, but only infringement on a woman’s choice in the abortion debate, we must put more focus on the fact that abortion is HARMFUL NOT HELPFUL to women.
I agree with your overall analysis Jill.
I say, and I am not joking, throw the entire kitchen sink/dinner (of proposed legislation) at Politicians and the genral public and see what sticks to the wall. There is nothing immoral or non-pragmatic about doing this.
However, from the 4 specific points he makes, I agree with only two.
I agrree with educating about sexual responsibility and to stop making this a women vs. child issue. I beleive these two points are generally agreed upon by most pro-lifers.
The two points I disagree with are 1) his insistence as making the case against abortion only on the grounds of science and 2) to stop using graphic images.
Science only establishes the facts. We need to use these facts to change laws and hearts. It fails to acknowledge the value question. Furthermore, his argument about sticking only to the scientific arguments in support of life is faulty and so 1980. Why would you decide to holster one of your best arguments? If we can convert people to Christianity as well as to being Pro-life why not do it, why not try it? He also acknowledged that the issue of recognizing the humanity of the preborn is not just a scientific question, it also a question about values. Value questions are not resolved by science.
With respect to graphic images – I simply believe they work. They help people understand the science of life, something he supports. One image proves the humanity of the preborn, more than a thousand words could ever do.
In short, keep the other side guessing.
My thinking on Siggins’ point, “Stop using Biblical argument to debate abortion,” is that many of us expend a lot of energy using logic and science to back up our opposition to abortion, one of the reasons I wonder where is he getting his information.
If his only source is the March for Life, it is quite strongly pro-Christian. People hold up banners stating where they’re from, and many if not most come with church groups or religious school groups. There’s nothing wrong with letting that be known. Isn’t that the flip side of, “Keep your rosaries off my ovaries,” which relies solely on anti-Christian beliefs to support abortion?
There’s also nothing wrong with ultimately coming to the point that morality is not grey, and Judeo-Christian moral thinking and our moral laws come from the God of the Bible.
What I love about debating with logic and science is having the confidence that they both back up Biblical moral teaching.
I don’t think he said anything too outrageous, many pro-lifers already employ these tactics he’s describing, but there are a huge number of pro-lifers who this message really does apply to.
I’m a young pro-lifer and I think he is spot on with most of what he’s saying. The Utra-sound bill is not as effective as the higher standards bill, but I do think we should still come at all angles.
For the most part, I would have to agree with the things he said.
He had some good points, but honestly I have found that over the last while the prolife movements been getting more scientific anyways. I rarely see people make arguments that are strictly based on the Bible alone.
Great choice of topic. My thoughts:
What is so significant is that the pro-life legislation passed in Mississippi (and similarly in Virginia) was made as fool proof as possible from the demonizing tactics of the left. The pro-life movement should emulate these successful principles and move away from those that are not working. For example, ultrasound legislation can be deemed as guilting mothers into not aborting their children or invading personal privacy. However, it is more difficult to argue against raising the standards of medical clinics so that women have a more sterile and professional environment….
I disagree here. Abortion proponents did try to demonize the regulations in Virginia and Mississippi. They just didn’t get as much media coverage and as a result, weren’t successful in derailing the legislation. Other states, aside from Virginia, successfully passed ultrasound laws without major difficulty in the past. So I really don’t think you can say that one partial setback in Virginia is proof that we should avoid ultrasound laws. The facts are on our side: a state mandated ultrasound is no more invasive than an ultrasound mandated by the clinic itself, and certainly far less invasive than the actual procedure. And if there’s anything in the image that might cause the mother to feel guilty, the question that must be asked is “why?”. If you can’t tell someone the truth about a surgical procedure, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.
Stop using Biblical arguments to debate abortion. After attending the 2010 March for Life, I do not think using religious arguments will persuade either self-described Christians who agree with abortion or non-Christians who agree with abortion. The science of life is in our favor, and we should emphasize this. This is not meant as a denigration or repudiation of religious work or prayer done to protect life – I am a strong Catholic participating in prayer protests before abortion clinics – but a practical recognition of living in a pluralistic society with many people who do not possess a Christian-based belief in the sanctity of unborn life.
I agree that the pro-life position is accessible to non-Christians and secularists. There are several pro-life atheists on this site, and prominent figures in the pro-life movement (Bernard Nathanson, Sir Albert Lilley) who were atheists. Christopher Hitchens, one of the Catholic Church’s harshest critics, understood that the pro-life position has its merits and can compete in the marketplace of ideas even in a secular environment. The best pro-life apologists don’t generally appeal to religion. However, they admit that the best they can do is show that the pro-life case has more explanatory power than any other intellectually honest position (rather than directly proving the metaphysical axioms involved). But I think that for virtually all reasonable people, this is sufficient.
Regarding the Biblical arguments, I think that it is important for pro-life Christians to master them (along with the non-religious arguments) for dealing with Christians who support legal abortion. I also think that the religious aspect of the March for Life isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Martin Luther King Jr. and William Wilberforce were very faith based individuals.
Do a better job of educating people about the responsiblilty [sic] that comes with sexual activity and explain better the help and care that can be provided so women will not feel as though abortion is their best or only option. I supported Indiana governor Mitch Daniel’s position of reforming and shrinking the federal welfare state as it is a critical piece in taking away incentives to act irresponsibly.
I’m not quite sure what he means here. There is no substantial body of peer reviewed evidence that generous welfare benefits significantly increase or decrease the abortion rate. He needs to provide this if he wants it to become an important issue for the pro-life movement.
Shock and awe have their place, as does presenting difficult truths, but indiscriminately throwing up images of dead babies and similar tactics as employed by Randall Terry will cause most people to simply turn and look in the other direction. Again, the majority of Americans are pro-choice, pro-abortion, or indifferent to the debate and just want it to go away. Used correctly, the shock and awe strategy can be effective, but often less so than engaging in a strong, purposeful, respectful discussion.*
Graphic images do have a time and a place. We have anecdotal evidence that even exposing children to the images can have extraordinary results:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/09/fighting-for-life
We need to use them correctly, but we do need to use them. I’m sure you already debated the merits and faults of the controversial Superbowl ad on a different weekend question thread.
Stop making abortion about women vs. children. Both are victims. Every time a pro-life activist blames a woman for having an abortion, that activist should in the same breath blame the men who get women pregnant and then either abandon them or encourage them to abort the child. We should make the battle about protecting women and unborn children from the abortion centers whose livelihood depends on the murder of children.The unfortunate fact is that we live in a nation where abortion is legal, and much of the public either favors it or is neutral on the debate. Undue focus on the women involved makes it even easier for supporters of abortion to successfully claim a false “war on women,” which makes creating a culture of life that much harder.
Here, I agree with Jill in that I wonder what universe he’s living in. Has he really never heard of crisis pregnancy centres or post-abortion outreach? There are certainly a few nasty, self-righteous blowhards in the pro-life movement. But he’s talking about the movement as a whole in his column, not some individuals. That’s quite a stretch, especially from someone who claims to do pro-life work.
*Re: Randall Terry. What does he expect us to do? Operation Rescue, the organization that he founded and later abandoned, feels compelled to release the occasional “we’re not with stupid” statement when he does his publicity stunts. But as Adam pointed out, it’s not like a social movement can excommunicate someone lots of people disagree with.
I don’t specifically disagree with his points (although, as a Christian, I feel compelled to point out that “stop using the Bible” is basically never good advice for anything, though there may be moments when I do it more overtly than others), but isn’t the pro-life movement already doing…like…all of this? Pretty much every point he makes, I’m thinking “We’ve been here before you.”
I agree with Jill. He feels very out-of-touch. He seems to have taken the abortion apologist strawmen as true and argued pro-lifers should move away from those. Which isn’t necessarily wrong so much as it is totally useless. Telling people to abandon strategies they aren’t using is just dumb.
As I’ve said beofre, I live amongst a group/culture of Protestantism that embraces abortion. Taking the Bible out of the equation is not such a big deal if we are talking to a wider (ie, secular) audience. But for me, what I am seeing is as breathtaking as it is heartbreaking: whole synods of Christians who are deliberately turning their back on the Word of God and turning it on its head. What is black is white. What is night is now day. What God created we may, with His blessing, destroy. All this deathmongering is done under the banner of social justice and moral reform. It scares me, deeply, and I find that at least with my abortionist/Christian brothers and sisters, I desperately need and want Scripture FRONT AND CENTER. It till be here, with its teaching and reproach, long after I, and they, are gone.
I agree pretty strongly with Siggins.
The thought that biblical arguments are going to mean anything to non-Christians – it is like a mormon using their text to try to convince me or something. I’m going to dismiss it right away.
Great article by Siggins.
I know i have rambled on about the importance of having a theortical (and ultimately religious) justification for why a person should value life, but ultimately it is more easily expressed as Jill said it – science and logic back-up the biblical teaching on life. The three reasons to support life are not incompatible; and in fact, support each other.
I just read Adam Graham’s response article and it is excellent – well written and well thought out.
I actually thought the weakest comment from Graham’s response was the one quoted on this board regarding armchair quarterbacks.
Armchair quarterbacks come in after a decision is done, and can’t be undone, and says what should have happened.
Siggins is saying how the course should be altered going forward, based on what has been learned.
Dustin Siggins has the disheveled look of one who has just been rudely awakened from his afternoon nap by the sounds of battle.
Not known for his astute powers of observation, Dustin mistakenly believe hostilities have only recently commenced.
I am reminded of the scene from ‘The Patriot’ where Martin’s son Gabriel is questioning the suitablility of some the men Martin has recruited for the militia.
Gabriel: “Father, I am not certain these are the sort of men we want for our army.”
Martin: “These are exactly the sort of men we need.”
[War is messy business.]
Courtnay, you put the whole issue to bed for me. You closed the debate with an exclamation point as far as I am concerned. The Biblical perspective is defintely needed.
Why is it our burden to tread lightly in this conflict? Did we have fund-raising for those poor slave-holders and lunch-counter owners who lost business? Right is right and wrong is wrong. There’s no need to dilute the message.
The other side needs to sober up. They throw baby showers one day and whistle a happy tune while others’ babies are destroyed. They need a metaphorical slap in the face to see what they are doing.
We’re not going to save babies by treating the other side like babies.
Hans -
So what do you think the key lessons learned from the Civil Rights movement are that can be applied to abortion?
Ex-GOP,
Get more GOP lawmakers to fend off Democrat bystanders or adversaries. The Dems were just fine with Jim Crow laws as they are with exterminating this baby or that.
Come back from the Dark Side, Ex-GOP. There are some gray areas you should be comfortable in.
And it IS dark over there. Re: see the life of Julia.
You’re right, Courtnay. Who needs a “War On Women” when you can you make them a slave to Big Government?
Obama wants everyone to ask:
My problem is _________________. Is there an app (application for a government program) for that?
Freaking Julia. Don’t get me started. I’m so glad Romney, et al, have pounced all over that nonsense.
There is no magical tactical bullet in the problem of abortion. Over 1 million lives a year are taken with hidden violence in this hugely wealthy nation alone.
Everyone should fight this, in all manner of non-violent ways. Use pictures of all
kinds. Use sonogram images. Use arguments, based in religion and science and common sense.
That’s my problem with the ideas in Siggins writing. If someone else’s style isn’t yours, I say fine. Keep doing what you are called to do and leave the other prolifers to do the same.
Human Hearts need to change in a massive way to end abortion. This requires as many solutions as their are hearts.
I wonder if anyone would have ever suggested to Dr. King if he get rid of Scripture and the moral imperative it not only provides but requires.
Anyone gonna be in Chitown next week? I’ve got a business trip comin’ on up…
The pro-life movement has changed in case some have missed it ~ Abolish Human Abortion and pass Personhood Now!!
Dear Mr.Siggins,
You are two weeks late and $500 dollars short. I have been-there, done-that SO HARD, and I have a closet full of t-shirts to prove it.
Someone did not get the memo!
Aww. Nobody wants to hang out with me in Chicago? Sad times. ;_;
“The argument is often made that the pro-life position is a religious position which should not be forced on those who do not share a similar belief. The first part of this argument is true. Regardless of how much scientific evidence we may present to prove that the unborn child is a distinct and living human being, there is no scientific evidence for rights in general or unalienable rights in particular. We can turn to the law and find that recognizing an unborn child’s unalienable right to life would be fully consistent with both constitutional and statutory law. We can turn to court precedent and discover that the courts have affirmed that the recognition of an unalienable right of the unborn child to life is a viable legal position. However, none of these branches of evidence is sufficient for the claim that the unalienable right of an unborn child should be recognized and that it would be wrong for us to fail to do so.
To argue that claim, we must turn to philosophy. We must ponder why some rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are unalienable while others (suffrage, property, double jeopardy, etc.) are subject to the constructs of society. When we consider the idea of unalienable rights, we must arrive at the same conclusion as our founding fathers. Rights can only be unalienable if they are granted directly to the individual from God. Indeed, there is no philosophical case for unalienable rights apart from God.
It was God who decreed that the right to life should be unalienable. It was by the authority of God that the founding fathers declared their right to alter or abolish any government that became destructive of unalienable rights. And it is by the authority of God that the pro-life community claims that same right in defense of the unborn. You may scoff, and you may scorn, but it is imperative that you remember this: Without the authority of God, your right to life is not unalienable either. ”
Source: http://www.personhoodinitiative.com/debate-1.html
Agreed that it seems Siggins is only familiar with the media’s portrayal of pro-lifers. Did he write this 30 years ago? Even then it probably would be misguided.
Ps) where does he get the idea that a majority of America is pro-choice or neutral? Again, the media?
@xalisae: I would if I could, but I can’t. :(
Some people like to voice their opinions in an echo chamber, but it seems our friend Mr.Siggins is stuck in a vacuum tube. :/
Also, thanks, Alice. I know you would. <3
Hans – maybe you are right about learning from the civil rights movement…maybe it is time for some mass disruptive protests in a state with the focus of having the legislative body pass a total ban on abortion in the state. Money can be raised for the court challenges, but the supremes are statistically the most conservative bunch in a long time – so why not, as they did, demand a ban?
The new piece by Dustin amounts to Dustin digging a hole for himself and then jumping in. He should’ve accepted the criticisms, apologized fro mistakes, and then moved on.
I expected him to apologize to all of the women and men who work at pregnancy help centres who help both Mother and Child for his “women vs. child” crack.
I don’t think we need to change our tactics, but there is one tactice that I think we should add to our arsenal.
We should inform one another and the Public about how each specific Personhood Amendment will work in each State. We should openly identify the laws, if any, that will be affected and as well as the effect the Amendment will have, if any, on medical treatments such as IVF and on the consumption of personal products such as hormonal contraceptives.
If the effects of the Personhood Amendments are going to vary from State to State everyone should know about this as well.
The Public should also be informed about the effects that a Personhood Amendment added to the US Constitution would have on IVF and hormonal contraceptives. If there are going to enabling statutes they should be disclosed and publicly discussed.
“Inalienable” vs. “unalienable” is there a difference in meaning?
Bill Fontenberry,
How can the Personhood Initiative consider Roe to be decided correctly, when the Texas law was considered unconstitutional because the fetus was deprived of due processs, and then go onto say in that same ruling that they can’t decide whether the preborn are persons for legal purposes? If the preborn are not legal persons the Texas law did not violate the due process clause in the 14th Amendment.
Please explain.
Abortion has been legal for 40 years, so obviously our current tactics aren’t working. I think we should ride roughshod over them like Ireland just did. Peaceful, politically correct dialogue sounds oh so lovely on paper, and has accomplished nothing. It’s time to let our ‘no more’ mean NO MORE. They can no longer defend their position with any sort of credibility, and the 70s sloganeering is long since irrelevant. It’s time to stop talking and ACT.
MPQ, in what way would you recommend acting? If there was something we can do now to end abortion I’m sure we’d be doing it. But it’s a little difficult with the issues of a divided public and the Supreme Court to contend with.
It means getting up off the couch and joining us out in front of the mills. It means giving your TIME and not just lip service. It means giving your money to those on the front lines, like Operation Rescue, it means not sleeping in and actually showing up at prolife demonstrations, it means supporting prolife candidates and actually campaigning for them. It means being willing to be unpopular and yes even vilified by your prochoice pals and family. It means not worrying about how politically correct your lip service sounds to others and instead boldly saying that abortion is murder and that you will oppose it irregardless of the opinions of others. It means putting the word of God in higher regard than the sexual pleasures of others and telling them so without apology. It means not compromising just because a feminist wilting hothouse flower might get her widdle feelings hurt. It means getting off the couch, which 90 percent of the prolife movement in America is unwilling to do as they scratch their heads and wonder why we’re having no effect. Will we see you out there on Saturday morning?
It means showing up to their little cyber-rally hugboxes via facebook and making their lives a living hell. ^_^
It means finding the next generations wherever they are and letting them know that “Pro-Choice” IS NOT the social default. It means letting our voices be heard by the Next Wave and giving them strength to do what we do. I’m all about the Youth Culture, dudes.
Tyler,
I don’t remember the distinction (it may really be a case of quaint English), but I consider “unalienable” to mean “can’t be” and “inalienable” to mean “shouldn’t be” deprived of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I have recently been reading the stuff on the website Personhood Initiative. The link was supplied by Bill Fortenberry.
I find that I am not areeing with a lot of the arguments on that site. Is this a site of a sole lone-ranger type of individual? Or does this site fairly represent the Personhood movement?
There is also a lot of good stuff on this site, but I am not 100% sure of the entire content and the effectiveness of the site’s perspective on Personhood.
Thanks Hans – that is what I have found. I think it could be important for pro-lifers to keep in mind.
“It means getting up off the couch and joining us out in front of the mills.”
More bizarre street theater that further alienates the pro-life movement from the mainstream in that it is viewed, by the mainstream, as a way to harass women – many of whom are just accessing routine gynecological care.
“It means putting the word of God in higher regard than the sexual pleasures of others and telling them so without apology.”
Translation – putting a mythical Middle Eastern male sky god in higher regard than our Constitution and legal system. Way to go lifers, Americans are yearning for a Christian theocracy.
“It was by the authority of God that the founding fathers declared their right to alter or abolish any government that became destructive of unalienable rights.”
Their Deistic concept of the divinity was far different from yours. And psst…the Founders based their ideas on the secular Enlightenment and English Common Law – neither of which were based in religion. In fact, the papacy was quite miffed about the Magna Carta.
“As I’ve said beofre, I live amongst a group/culture of Protestantism that embraces abortion.”
And, as I’ve said before, it’s not just the liberal Protestants. It’s the majority of American Jews the majority of whom are non Orthodox. And BTW, if “science” is on your side, why isn’t the scientific community (including medical schools that instruct on abortion) on your side. You guys need to offer up more prayer.
But here’s the thing – keep up the effort to re-criminalize abortion which will mean that our legal and prison system will be burdened with an abundance of women and doctors who, under your law, will be going to jail. And let’s pass “personhood” which will mean that the big, bad government that you hate will be taking custody of every pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, and does drugs. Of course that will conflict with the law that states that those over 18 are “persons” who are entitled to liberty but hey, it’s all about the fetus. Its incubator is secondary.
You guys should definitely be picketing the IVF clinics. That will really endear you to the mainstream!!!! And maybe your radical Operation Rescue pals can “liberate” some of these little babies in the Petri dishes. The Catholic priests can baptize them and then they can be implanted in the wombs of good Christian gals who see themselves as handmaidens to the pro-life lord!!!!!
CC says:
You guys need to offer up more prayer.
Who knew that amidst CC’s ranting screed there would be this little gem of truth!
Awww…No love for me at the little roast you threw for the others, CC? I feel left out. *pouts*
Funny I’ve never seen CC out in front of the mill offering to pay for the abortions of others. Wonder why that is…
Jill said:
“What I love about debating with logic and science is having the confidence that they both back up Biblical moral teaching.”
Awesome.
The pro-life movement should carry on like it has been doing.
Pro-choice did well for a brief momednt in history when the majority of society either bought the arguments or did not speak up for reasons of civility.
Things have been amazingly different in the recent several years. Health care reform brought abortion from way down in the general public’s radar politically to make it painfully apparent that abortion is practically the ONLY sacred-cow issue for “democrats.” We pro-lifers forced the pro-choicers to show who they are, declare their allegiance in no uncertain terms, and declare their commitment. Health care reform was the first time the fangs were shown as they are.
Things will continue to go well by simply speaking truth. One avenue may be quicker, or work in some settings, than another. But the truth is something that will eventually win out.
No one ever heard of “bodily integrity” until the recent couple of years. Pro-choice people have to keep going to ever-more ridiculous claims and strategies as truth becomes more recognized.
No rapist has ever been accused of violating a rape victim’s “bodily integrity.” That is a made-up concept to use when arguing pro-lifers. There is nowhere a bit of legislation coming from any democrat or feminist saying a rapist ought to be susceptible to charges of violating “bodily integrity.”
This just shows how ad hoc and shallow all of the pro-choice arguments are.
As we pro-lifers keep encouraging pro-life legislation, it pulls abortion into the light, where discussions have to be carried out. Pro-choicers have to keep making various ridiculous arguments to sustain their view.
Currently, pro-choicers have decided that there is some entirely new phase of life span development – the time from conception to the point when that whatever becomes a human. Ask 20 pro-choicers and you will get 20 answers. Some might say ‘implantation,’ some might say birth, some might say heartbeat, some might say pain, some might say viability, some might say third trimester, some might say ‘if wanted,’ and some might say the newborn can be killed by a post-birth abortion.
Keeping abortion legislation, and peaceful abortion clinic protests, and the other informative, nonviolent efforts, are all working wonders.
as pro-life makes advances, the pro-choice people are forced to reveal their true colors, and show how disguisting it all is. They are forced to show how they are essentially political and money-focused, and you get an ugly episode as Komen was. PP should have cut their losses. But they chose to show their fangs.
That is who they are.
Asians with a lifestyle preference for gendercide have immigrated to the U.S. and Canada. As that becomes increasingly apparent, by demographics, the pro-choice people are forced to support gendercide abortion.
This is why Hillary and Obama were ignoring Chen Guangsheng, and why it was masterful for him to say he wanted to fly home on hillary’s plane. This forces Hillary and Obama to reveal that they lean more on the state-forced abortion side than the human-rights side.
In the U.K., physicians are in legal trouble now for conducting gendercide, counter to their law. Because the sex-selection issue has immigrated to UK, and because pro-life people are trying to expose nothing other than truth.
It was only a few years ago when I learned that 90% of children with Down Syndrome are aborted upon testing. Nearly all of us know a family with a Down Syndrome family member. This truth exposes the pro-choice people for who they are, and what they are willing to do.
The disAbility community is paying attention. The same-sex-orientation people are beginning to pay attention. Because they are next.
Stay the course. Keep making the issues be discussed in public. Keep making politicians declare their real position. Keep proposing heart beat bills, and so on. Stay the course.
I think if you ask 20 pro-lifers about the legal implications of a Personhood Amendment to the US Constitution (of any State Constitution) you will get 20 different answers.
Nice to see CC continue her tradition of posting three unintentionally hilarious comments one after the other. I glad she keeps doing that, I really enjoy the laughs.
Collosians 3:23
Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others
I just thought I would add though he may seem out of touch to you, you have to remember our target audience will be seeing our movement with this writer’s eyes, and not those of us in the movement. What’s most important isn’t how we see each other but how the mushy middle sees us. I agree with the general principles of his comments, but again, every state and group is different. Every movement has its different sides. What is most important is the daily conversations on the issue of abortion, where this issue is decided.
“Funny I’ve never seen CC out in front of the mill offering to pay for the abortions of others. Wonder why that is…”
Talk about “moronic.” I contribute a substantial amount of money to Planned Parenthood which helps to defray costs of abortion, as well as provide necessary gynecological care to low income women. The checkbook is mightier than the mob which is exactly what you folks have degenerated to. What other surgical procedure involves running a gauntlet of characters out of theater of the absurd – screaming zealots who would have been at home in medieval parades of Catholic flagellants or part of the crowd watching non-believers burn at the stake. But you’re “pro-life” and so love women so it’s all good. You guys are so clueless…
Yeah, CC, but our hearts and our children are ALIVE.
You reek of hate and darkness and death.
Why in the world do you keep coming back CC?
I would have shaken the dust off my sandals for the “clueless” years ago and never commented on this blog again!!
There is some kind of sick satisfaction you must get to carry on here.
What other surgical procedure involves running a gauntlet of characters out of theater of the absurd-
I don’t know. Can you think of any other surgeries that are a clinical term for a parent having their child killed?
Mr. Siggins is sadly misinformed. The ‘pro-lifers’ are as mixed a group as can be. They do not fit into one neat category. I too am ticked that he would speak to us as an outsider. He claims he is a Catholic who prays at clinics. Well, for that matter I am too, but I don’t think you need to change your tactics. Modify them to some extent, perhaps. BTW, I belong to the Yahoo Group alternative lifers, and their reason for being is this:
Description
This is a list for liberal, libertarian, moderate, feminist, non-Christian (atheist, agnostic, Wiccan, Jewish, Pagan, Buddhist…), gay, lesbian, bisexual, alternative-culture, and other pro-lifers who don’t quite fit the traditional pro-life mold because of lifestyle or views. Hopefully, this list will help us to network, to learn new forms of political action, and to feel less alone. All prolife issues (abortion, embryonic experimentation, in vitro technology, euthanasia, assisted suicide) will be discussed.
Pro-choicers and conservative prolifers are welcome to visit as guests as long as they are respectful to alternative prolifers and to the prolife position that unborn babies at all ages are human beings. The guests may not whine about or attack the alternative prolifers or prolife values. They should, on the other hand, be prepared to be challenged by the regular members.
The link for this group is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlternativeLifers/ if you’re interested.
Most of his points miss the mark, but he is really confused about the value of the pictures of aborted fetuses. Shocking they may be but they are the truth. The Holocaust pictures of the emaciated bodies were shocking too, but they worked. I think the pictures, shocking as they are, make you think. And, if children see them, they probably don’t know what they are so it would be a teaching moment for the parent.
I don’t know. Can you think of any other surgeries that are a clinical term for a parent having their child killed?
So the bottom line is that any woman who has an abortion of her own free will (not one of the mythical millions who are “coerced” ) is a murderer. Am I right?
More bizarre street theater that further alienates the pro-life movement from the mainstream in that it is viewed, by the mainstream, as a way to harass women
{{citation needed}}
We can’t be that alienated from the mainstream if about half of all Americans are willing to identify as pro-life (warts and all):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148880/Plenty-Common-Ground-Found-Abortion-Debate.aspx
The thousands of babies saved from abortion, the mothers spared the pain of losing their children, and the clinic workers who saw the light because of this “bizarre street theater” are no doubt grateful.
http://www.40daysforlife.com/
many of whom are just accessing routine gynecological care.
I don’t personally live near a Planned Parenthood abortion clinic, so I’m not sure how sidewalk counselling generally works in this case. But according to this manual, it is usually easy to tell whether or not someone is there for an abortion. Regardless, this would be a moot point if Planned Parenthood simply stopped doing abortions.
I’ll leave it to others to refute your theological strawmen, though I have a feeling that people with more time and intelligence than myself have already done this many times (to no avail). In the meantime, I would recommend reading the Declaration of Independence.
Way to go lifers, Americans are yearning for a Christian theocracy.
Pro-life Christians are not pushing for a theocracy. A theocracy is a form of government where there is a state mandated religion, and the clergy control the state. This is not what pro-life Christians want. They want to propose their ideas (which are consistent with Biblical principles but still compatible with a secular audience) to be publicly accepted and made into law through the democratic system. That’s how democracy works.
(these ideas, by the way, involve a more just nation where all humans have basic human rights. Pretty wild, huh?)
And, as I’ve said before, it’s not just the liberal Protestants. It’s the majority of American Jews the majority of whom are non Orthodox.
You do, of course, realize that pro-abortion Christians and pro-abortion Jews worship the same “mythical Middle Eastern male sky god” that pro-life Christians and pro-life Jews do, right? How can you go about trashing Abrahamic religions in general, then immediately after go “Look, [insert Abrahamic denominations here] agree with me!!!”?
And BTW, if “science” is on your side, why isn’t the scientific community (including medical schools that instruct on abortion) on your side. You guys need to offer up more prayer.
What exactly are you looking for here? Science can and does tell us what the unborn is (a complete, genetically distinct, living human organism). I can quote respected embryology textbooks that assert this fact. Science doesn’t, however, tell us how we should treat it. That’s a moral question.
Regarding the medical community, are you sure they’re as supportive of abortion as you make them out to be? I recall hearing about how medical students aren’t interested in becoming abortionists and that there’s likely to be a shortage of providers. I also recall an article at RH Reality Check lamenting the stigma surrounding abortion providers in the medical community (a pro-life scientist wrote a great rebuttal to it).
But here’s the thing – keep up the effort to re-criminalize abortion
You know we will ;)
which will mean that our legal and prison system will be burdened with an abundance of women and doctors who, under your law, will be going to jail.
It’s good that you say “doctors” rather than “coat hanger wielding back alley butchers”. Indeed, as early as 1960 Planned Parenthood noted that 9 out of 10 abortions were done by physicians:
http://rtlcc.org/docs/backalley/e-PPDismissesMyth.pdf
How many women went to jail before Roe for having abortions? How many women in Ireland go to jail every year for abortion? I think that most women and most doctors would follow the law if abortion were made illegal. At least at first, I’m fine with punishing only the abortionist and not the mother. Many abortions are coerced, and the abortionist is a greater danger to the public. This is consistent with enforcement of other criminal laws.
And let’s pass “personhood” which will mean that the big, bad government that you hate will be taking custody of every pregnant woman who smokes, drinks, and does drugs.
A pregnant woman who does those things and harms her child already can be charged with child abuse in many cases. Personhood for the unborn child is as old as English law. Though I would hope that the law takes into account things like the mother’s mental state, intent, and degree of harm caused. I don’t want to get into a scenario where women are avoiding prenatal care due to fear of being punished.
Of course that will conflict with the law that states that those over 18 are “persons” who are entitled to liberty but hey, it’s all about the fetus. Its incubator is secondary.
Mother, not “incubator”. The fact that you’re portraying a pregnant woman as a machine rather than a parent with legal and moral duties to her minor children really blows your credibility.
You guys should definitely be picketing the IVF clinics.
I actually do think IVF (which creates “excess” embryonic humans) is something pro-lifers should be taking seriously. Pro-lifers were on the right track when they opposed destroying frozen embryos for their stem cells, but they haven’t put nearly enough focus on disposing of embryos in a non-research context. But two important points come to mind:
1. Abortion still kills more humans than IVF. If you destroyed every frozen embryo in the US, you wouldn’t get four months worth of abortions. It makes sense to put most of the focus on something that takes more lives.
2. The humans killed by abortion have more emotional appeal than those killed by IVF. While all humans have the same value, I would think that you’d have a hard time convincing society to reject the destruction of frozen embryos until you’ve convinced them to reject this.
Talk about “moronic.” I contribute a substantial amount of money to Planned Parenthood which helps to defray costs of abortion, as well as provide necessary gynecological care to low income women.
Look at you! You’re more honest than Planned Parenthood is!
The checkbook is mightier than the mob which is exactly what you folks have degenerated to.
I’m sure both sides do the “mob rule” thing to a certain extent. See today’s Abby Johnson story. I would wager that, if we were to keep score, the pro-life side is better behaved.
What other surgical procedure involves running a gauntlet of characters out of theater of the absurd
See the rest of my post, and xalisae’s. She said it well.
screaming zealots who would have been at home in medieval parades of Catholic flagellants or part of the crowd watching non-believers burn at the stake.
{{citation needed}}
Dear cc: what I don’t understand is why you can’t understand why we pro-lifers must be against abortion. Because we believe that life begins at conception, standing idly by is equivalent to respecting a woman’s choice to kill her 5-year-old. There is only one question that matters, and that is when does a person become a person? How do you answer this question?
I think those who are for recognizing the legal personhood of the preborn should be for legalizing abortion in the rare cases when it is needed in order to protect the life of the Mother. It is my view that there will ne no need to criminalize abortion when the preborn are recognized as legal persons – at the point in time the Constitution will protect the preborn, and not crime law.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Elph9CfsKs
This short speech contains the entire pro-life personhood philosophy. It is the Constitution of the Personhood Amendment movement. Nothing should be added to or subtracted from this PA Constitution!
We should focus on achieving personhood for the preborn and let whatever other legal ramifications occur happen.
Perhaps the above video should be renamed the Declaration of the Personhood of the Preborn. And this following video should be the Constitution of the Personhood Amendment movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o000KW_wLA&feature=related
:) Navi, normally I admonish people to avoid feeding trolls such as CC, but that last post was such a feast to the eyes that I can’t bring myself to admonish, this time! (Next time, however… ;) )
I am as guilty of troll feeding as anyone else, but part of me wonders what would happen if we just stopped feeding them entirely. Because, CC lets be honest about this. You only come here for the reactions you get.
CC: is a 6 week old fetus a human being, and if it is not, what is it?
I believe, according to science as well as God, that a six-week-old fetus is a living human being.
The burden is upon you to present some entirely new stage of biological reproduction to account for the developmental phenomena from conception to [insert your personal idea about when life begins here].
If you end a life without some recognized, justifiable cause (due process in murder charge, self-defense, and so on), it is murder. Who is doing the murder? I don’t know. What should happen? I don’t know.
That does not change the fact that a life is being ended for the convenience of another person.
Roe does not declare when life begins, so the “legal” argument of Roe does not apply.
CC apparently wishes that people with moral convictions would cease to care about those moral convictions. Herself a righteous moral crusader, she would like to see others — pro-lifers, at any rate, reduced to pansy-ass moral indifference about what they now hold dear.
I don’t know what to make of anyone who would like to see half the country (those who believe unborn life has value and should be afforded serious protection) turn into moral zombies who’ve stopped caring about what they think is important. What would she do if someone were assaulting her violently and these newly minted moral midgets just shrugged and turned away?
She doesn’t mind seeing the unborn in that position, as she turns away — no, cheers, actually.