Pro-life news brief 8-1-13
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Mollie Hemingway has a great point on the national media turning a blind eye towards Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid fraud:
It’s so confusing how a private breast cancer charity choosing not to give Planned Parenthood a couple hundred thousand dollars generated thousands of stories but that same abortion group paying a $1.4 million $4.3 million fraud settlement doesn’t generate hardly any. - Nightline went to the last abortion clinic in Mississippi. Is it me or is it really odd to be using a hula-hoop while holding a sign “I Do Not Regret My Abortion”? Also, think about how thoughtless abortion clinic owner Diane Derzis’ comment is regarding whether she’s wrong about the morality of abortion. If she’s wrong it may be between Derzis and God but she’d be partially responsible for the death of thousands of people and the possibility of that doesn’t faze her.
- The new abortion regulation law in Texas may lower the number of Mexican women who cross the border for abortions:
With limited options, Mexican women routinely cross the border to seek services at abortion clinics in Texas.“It would be a great impact because some of those women will have nowhere to go,” said Gerri Laster, administrative director of Reproductive Services.
It’s one of the few clinics where women in the region can get abortions.
Thirty percent of the El Paso clinic’s patients are women from Mexico. Some live just across the border in Ciudad Juarez, but others travel from the interior of Mexico, including Aguascalientes, Durango and Sonora.
Aug.01, 2013 2:26 pm |
Blogs |
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.
Imagine how many lives we could save if the media and entertainment powers that be fought for life instead of against it?
No reporting on Ariel Castro getting a life sentence for his brutal DIY “at home” abortion of his kidnapping/rape victim(s)?
:(
I’m sure the women of northern Mexico are just weeping tears of gratitude right now. Saved them all that time and effort! Praise!!!!!1
The following is idle speculation:
Mexican nationals shop in El Paso for all kinds of stuff all the time. They probably think our abortion clinics are better of something. What a misguided notion that is. I don’t think it is because of the illegality issue…they just want it to be anonymous.
I have heard that because of Texas’s parental notification laws…underage American girls from El Paso, TX cross the bridge to CD Juarez to get cheaper anonymous abortions on the illegal Mexican market. I don’t know how common this might be.
If the 2 abortion clinics in El Paso close because they are filthy and can’t pass a real inspection—illegal abortion businesses in Juarez may prosper. There is also a satellite abortion facility located in Santa Teresa, NM. (directly adjacent to El Paso, TX). Underage girls are also sent there to skirt Texas reporting laws.
Hi X,
He didn’t commit an abortion, he exercised a choice. Huge difference. No clue what it is but, there is one.
It wasn’t his choice to make Mary, nice try at sophistry though.
Life plus 1000 years – excellent!
That cell’s gonna get a little whiffy at some stage though, for a while at least.
You miss the point Reality,
Its always a “choice, not an abortion. Let’s say he forced a “choice” on his victim. Fair enough?
There’s choice. Sometimes the choice is abortion. Some times it isn’t. It can only be a woman’s choice.
No, he did not force a ‘choice’ on his victim. He forced a miscarriage.
While abortion is legal women can choose to say ‘no thanks’. If abortion is illegal then they don’t have any choice at all.
Reality,
You need to get a few things straight. “Miscarriage” refers to a spontaneous abortion that occurs naturally. You can’t force a miscarriage on someone, you can only force an induced abortion. People insist they are pro choice, not pro abortion, so how are they the same?
Fair enough Mary, ok, he forced an abortion on her. It still wasn’t ‘choice’ that he forced on her.
Perhaps you should spread the word – http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/07/st-paul-man-charged-with-trying-to-induce-miscarriage-by-punching-girlfriend-in-the-stomach/#.UfsMAKwbhs8
Reality,
I will give you that, some people on my side need to be informed that forced or induced abortion is not spontaneous abortion (miscarriage).
Now, perhaps you should tell some people on your side that abortion is abortion, its not “a choice”.
It’s not a ‘your side’ thing Mary. I’ve read and heard numerous reports in various media over the years where they talk about ‘attempted to induce a miscarriage’ or ‘bring on a miscarriage’.
Abortion is one of a number of choices, what’s your point?
Reality,
I have heard abortion inducing drugs referred to as “miscarriage inducing drugs”. I think its a combination of medical ignorance and desire to deceive the public. “Miscarriage” inducing doesn’t sound as bad a “abortion” inducing. The public might be more inclined to think the woman is just experiencing a normal biological process.
Its like calling abortion ”choice”. That’s my point.
“I have heard abortion inducing drugs referred to as “miscarriage inducing drugs” – yes, that one raises even my eyebrows.
Abortion is a choice. So is not having an abortion.
Reality,
So if one supports the right to choose abortion then they must be pro abortion as well, correct?
I can hardly argue that I oppose wife abuse, yet support a man’s choice to beat his wife.
Being pro-abortion is an element of being pro-choice. The availability, the allowing, of choice is prime. Abortion, just like not aborting, adopting out or keeping, is secondary.
If I were to follow your analogy I would need to be claiming that I was anti-choice yet supported a woman’s choice to have an abortion. Weird analogy.
Unlike claiming to be ‘pro-life’ yet supporting the death penalty, which is simply contradictory.
“Unlike claiming to be ‘pro-life’ yet supporting the death penalty, which is simply contradictory.”
Actually I do rather agree with this from a semantics perspective. “Pro-life” would imply that you are pro-all life, including convicts, animals, etc, and it’s something I strive for (though I try to be rational about it and realize that it’s okay to kill mosquitoes for human health lol). But you know as well as I do that “pro-life” as a political movement is generally agreed to mean anti-abortion, and so it’s not really contradictory to be pro-life and pro-death penalty with that understanding.
I also think that some people assign whether a human is worthy of having their life protected on the basis of innocence, and that people who commit murders have given up their right to have their lives sustained. I disagree with this logic strenuously, but I don’t think is contradictory with being anti-abortion.
But I do think it’s perfectly reasonable to call pro-choice advocates pro-abortion, and I think it’s funny you guys get so upset about it. You’re pro-legal abortion. None of the other choices involving a woman’s pregnancy are under debate here, just abortion. It’s abortion that is the choice you’re fighting to keep legal. You’re pro-abortion. That’s fine.
I don’t mind being called anti-choice, I think that’s fine. I’m anti-choice in regards to killing human fetuses. Anti-choice is an okay label with me. :)
OK, Jack the anti-choice budding buddhist :-)
The difference being that some of us support all choices being available to pregnant women whilst others don’t support the full range of choices being available. Pro-choice is primary, pro-abortion is secondary.
Lulz I know nothing about Buddhism tbh.
” The difference being that some of us support all choices being available to pregnant women whilst others don’t support the full range of choices being available. Pro-choice is primary, pro-abortion is secondary.”
Well, that’s just silly. Both you and I support all the choices that pregnant women have available to them, we only differ on abortion. The terms that make the most logical sense are pro-abortion and anti-abortion, because no one is arguing about the other choices. It’s just a descriptive, accurate term, and it’s honestly silly you hedge around it.
Pretty much every other political/moral viewpoint, the adherents have no issue labeling themselves with the name of what they are fighting for. I am pro-animal rights, I don’t make some weird term to hide what I advocate. I’m anti-child abuse, I’m pro-advocacy for sexual abuse victims, I’m pro-decriminalization of drugs. I don’t have a problem with labeling myself with what I actually support. I think it’s really weird that you all have such a problem labeling yourself with what you support. If abortion is morally neutral or a positive thing, it shouldn’t be any issue labeling yourself that way.
Reality.
Being PC is primary, being PA secondary. Don’t you have to be PA(primary) to support PC(secondary)?
I would think you have to support a particular action before supporting someone’s right to commit it.
For instance, if I lived in the 1840’s, wouldn’t I have to support slavery before supporting someone’s “right” to own a slave?
Me neither Jack. The cloths look comfortable and colorful though.
Shall I tell Tyler that he and I are both atheists? After all, I only believe in one less god than he does.
There is no inaccuracy in stating that pro-choice is because all choices are supported while anti-choice doesn’t.
The other topics you mention generally only have singularity of aspect. You call yourself ‘pro animal rights’, not ‘anti animal killing’. You say you are ‘pro-decriminalization’, not ‘pro-drug abuse’.
I am not just pro-abortion. I am pro all the choices available.
“Being PC is primary, being PA secondary. Don’t you have to be PA(primary) to support PC(secondary)?” – no.
“I would think you have to support a particular action before supporting someone’s right to commit it.” – do you? Really?
I’m so freaking irritated with my keyboard, I had a nice comment all written out for you, Reality, and it deleted it! Annoying, I’ll type it out again for you lol.
” There is no inaccuracy in stating that pro-choice is because all choices are supported while anti-choice doesn’t.”
I never said that pro-choice is inaccurate, I think it’s accurate. I don’t think it’s particularly descriptive. For example, “pro-decriminalization” is an accurate label for my views on drugs, but it’s not very descriptive. Many labels are perfectly accurate for my views, some more descriptive than others. I’m pro-medical marijuana, as in I advocate it as a safer pain medication than opiates (you’ll find this a common view for a lot of recovering opiate addicts like me). I’m “pro-choice”, if you will, on recreational use of marijuana, and to a lesser extent drugs like psychedelic mushrooms. I’m anti-recreational use of all opiates, especially heroin, and anti-recreational use of many other drugs as well, like cocaine. All those labels are perfectly acceptable, they fairly describe my views. And if I were in a debate about recreational use of marijuana, I wouldn’t insist that my label be the vague “pro-decriminalization”, I’d be fine with the “pro-choice on recreational marijuana use” label, it’s more descriptive for the conversation.
So, I guess I just don’t get why, when you’re debating abortion, that you feel as though “pro-abortion” isn’t an okay label for you. It’s not inaccurate, and it’s the relevant label for the argument at hand. It seems silly to fight against it.
Reality,
Why is it that PC folks like yourself go through all these semantic gymnastics? Why don’t you just say you are pro abortion and leave it at that?
Can you name any other examples of an action where people argue they strongly support the choice to commit the action while opposing the action itself? Also shouldn’t this rule apply across the board? Why just abortion?
It’s accurate, it just doesn’t encapsulate the prime objective. My prime objective is that women have all choices made available to them. I don’t advocate for abortion above any of the other choices. Anti-choicers advocate against women having all the choices available to them.
Why don’t pro-lifers call themselves pro-adoptioners? That’s also accurate.
Reality,
Since I condone adoption, I am pro adoption. I have no objection to being called that.
Since you condone abortion, I’ll call you pro abortion. If you condone women having choices of adoption or financial support to keep their children, then I will say you are pro adoption and pro support for women who want to keep and raise their children. Sound fair?
“It’s accurate, it just doesn’t encapsulate the prime objective. My prime objective is that women have all choices made available to them. I don’t advocate for abortion above any of the other choices.”
But when it comes to the abortion debate, that’s the only choice up for debate. We’re not focusing on the other choices. It just looks like deflecting what you’re supporting, to be honest.
“Anti-choicers advocate against women having all the choices available to them.”
Well, I said I’m fine with the label “anti-choice”, it’s not very descriptive though. I’m anti one particular choice, the choice to kill a living human fetus when the mother’s life is not in danger. Actually to be honest I’m not so gung-ho about adoption, either, but only because it’s historically been a coercive, dirty industry. Done ethically, and if it’s the biological parents non-coerced choice and they aren’t forced by circumstances, I’m “pro-choice” on adoption.
” Why don’t pro-lifers call themselves pro-adoptioners? That’s also accurate.”
Well like I said, some of us like me aren’t to fond of adoption. I even ruminate over whether I think closed adoptions should be illegal all together, and some type of semi-open adoption should be put into place instead. I think the child’s rights and the biological parents rights tend to suffer in adoption, and it needs a lot of oversight. And I really, really don’t like it when people try to push adoption instead of abortion. No, the first choice should always, always be trying to get the biological parents in a place where they are able to care for their own child. Adoption is a sad solution when that’s not possible, but it’s not something that should be taken lightly or “advocated” as 100% positive. So it would be very inaccurate to call me pro-adoption. The label certainly does fit some pro-lifers, though.
And actually, I’m fine being called “pro-adoption” since I don’t want it illegal, I support it as a valid option if it’s freely chosen by the biological parents and done ethically. It’s not like I’m gung-ho about it, though.
“Why is it that PC folks like yourself go through all these semantic gymnastics?” – he he, that’s funny.
“Why don’t you just say you are pro abortion and leave it at that?” – because I am not just pro-abortion.
“Can you name any other examples of an action where people argue they strongly support the choice to commit the action while opposing the action itself?” – yes. I’m sure you can too if you try, just a little bit.
“Also shouldn’t this rule apply across the board? Why just abortion?” – it’s not just abortion. Nor is it across the board though. (insert 3000 word historical/philosophical/anthropological thesis on the culmination of tens of thousands of years of developing civilizations’ arrival at recognised core behavioral expectations to maximize potential community harmony – don’t steal, don’t murder and don’t mow your neighbors grass){no I won’t be actually supplying it – I’m sure you’re capable of getting the gist}
I swear sometimes my posts look schizophrenic when I realize I didn’t explain myself correctly, and then I write something that is like, nearly the opposite of what I just said. Sorry, I’m kinda slow. Anyway, pro-adoption is okay with me. I don’t advocate it, I don’t think it’s incredible and awesome like some pro-lifers do, but I do think it should be a legal valid choice and used ethically.
Heeeeeeeeeeeeey, you might be on to something Mary!
How about you call me pro-support/abort/adopt and I call you pro-not so much? Sound fair?
What do you think Jack?
“I swear sometimes my posts look schizophrenic when I realize I didn’t explain myself correctly, and then I write something that is like, nearly the opposite of what I just said.” – that has not been my observation, at all.
“Sorry, I’m kinda slow” – for f*#@’s sake Jack, NO YOU ARE NOT!!!
” How about you call me pro-support/abort/adopt and I call you pro-not so much? Sound fair?
What do you think Jack?”
Lol I guess. I think for the purposes of these debates, where we are usually just debating whether abortion should be legal or not, pro-abortion and anti-abortion would work fine. If we’re debating adoption, you can be pro-adoption and I’ll be pro-adoption with some major overhaul to the current system. And I’m sure we both agree that mothers who keep their babies need and deserve as much support as they need, so we can both be pro-supporters of mothers.
I actually don’t get why anyone would unequivocally support either adoption or abortion in this country, people should really look into the issues surrounding both of the industries. Even if you don’t have a moral problem with abortion, there’s been some majorly scummy, nasty, coercive stuff in the industry. And even if you support adoption, there’s been some terribly coercive and unethical stuff going on for years that is just now starting to get reformed. People who care about women and babies, and men for that matter, should really take a hard look at these industries before supporting them unequivocally. /soapbox.
Why are you yelling at me? Or, uh, typing at me loudly?
Because you need to stop with the self-denigration. There are plenty of others who seem happy to do that for you.
If you were actually thick then you wouldn’t have dragged yourself out of the mire to where you are now and where you are capable of going.
I’m old enough to be your grandfather – in certain states we know of anyway ;-) – my own son is older than you. I’ve taught teenagers, young adults and older adults. You are not slow, by any measure.
Oh, I’m not trying to be self-denigrating, it’s just honest. I am not very quick, it takes me a long time compared to other people to learn stuff and it always has. My oldest sister told me I didn’t know how to talk until I was like four and a half, and I didn’t learn to read until I was almost nine. I didn’t even know the alphabet until I was like seven or so. Some type of learning disability or slowness or something. I don’t understand basic things that are readily apparent to other people until it’s explained to me multiple times or I read a lot about it. I’m not trying to put myself down, really, it’s just obvious to me I’m not as quick to learn as most people, this is what I’ve been told and it seems correct.
You just haven’t looked around enough Jack :-)
Everyone has different capacities and attributes. When I was your age I couldn’t drive a nail into a piece of wood. By my thirties the complete opposite was the case.
Your use and construct of language certainly excceds some I see in its clarity.
Maybe you’re just a ‘late bloomer’ who is now on the cusp.
Well I was doing research on it and apparently severe abuse can actually retard brain development in childhood. Also, being deprived of affection can affect brain development as well. That’s why people abused as children generally get poorer grades, have more learning disabilities, etc. Since I was really severely abused and I don’t remember really receiving affection from anyone except from my father, who just used it to sexually abuse me, I think it’s pretty likely I have some type of learning disability or lack of brain development. I have a lot of trouble remembering things and organizing my thoughts, and people tell me I’m not too bright a lot of the time because I don’t understand simple things, so I don’t think that slow is an inaccurate descriptor. Oh, and I did a LOT of drugs and drinking when I was like 12 until I was 18, which probably caused some major damage. Luckily a lot can be improved, that’s why I try to read a lot, it’s supposed to help fix your brain if you had a deprived or abusive childhood or damaged your brain with drugs.
But you’re right maybe I shouldn’t talk about how dumb I am all the time. I think it might be hurting more than helping. I don’t really notice myself doing it though, it’s pretty automatic, so thank you for pointing it out.
Reading is good. Knowledge and thought processing. Crosswords are good too, not just for improving vocabulary but also for knowledge, thought processing and memory development. Find a numerical game that appeals to you if you can. I enjoy running sequences of prime numbers in my head. Identify the things that you are good at and try to expand on them, you’ll find that advancements in other areas, sometimes surprising ones, come with it.
“But you’re right maybe I shouldn’t talk about how dumb I am all the time.” – on this one I will claim to be even righter than usual ;-)
“Reading is good. Knowledge and thought processing. Crosswords are good too, not just for improving vocabulary but also for knowledge, thought processing and memory development. Find a numerical game that appeals to you if you can. I enjoy running sequences of prime numbers in my head. Identify the things that you are good at and try to expand on them, you’ll find that advancements in other areas, sometimes surprising ones, come with it.”
Yeah these are all good ideas. I actually think I have an okay vocabulary, and I think that’s because I started reading things in rehab that were way above my reading level (they tested me, I only had I think a ninth or tenth grade reading level when I was eighteen. I don’t think that was my fault though, my parents didn’t send me to school and they didn’t spend much time trying to teach me anything. My dad liked to teach me math and science but no one taught me much about reading, writing, literature, etc). The more you read the better your vocabulary. I improved my spelling by doing word searches, every time I found a word I would look up the definition too. Also I play a lot of strategy video games, and apparently from what I have read they can help your memory and reasoning capability. Luckily I’ve never had much trouble with math or science, it seems to come naturally. I have noticed some improvements, especially in my memory. I think a lot of my memory problems were due to heroin in the first place, and the longer I’m clean the better I can remember things and use reason and logic. So I think I can do better, it’s just hard. And I hate my parents lol.
Luckily my kids are really bright and don’t seem to have my issues (that’s not just me bragging, they seem to be advanced for their age). My son just turned five and he can sound out most small words and he can figure out what they mean usually, he can’t really read sentences yet but he can figure out words pretty well. He knows his numbers and I’m teaching him to add. And my daughter’s only two and she’s learning the alphabet already. My son’s already bilingual pretty much, because I try to talk to my kids in Spanish and English about equally because I want them to speak them both equally. My son has more trouble figuring out Spanish words than English, but that only makes sense because he’s around more English because it’s an English-speaking country! So my kids don’t seem to have my learning problems and that makes me happy. :)
Well Jack, it sounds like you’ve launched from that cusp :-)
I hate video games
Video games are great! You don’t even know.
I have played them and I am aware of the training benefits some can have for certain activities but I just find them tedious and excessively time consuming. I’d rather watch a good documentary, or even a mediocre one.
I have trouble watching television, I get confused and have to rewind too much especially if it’s a subject I don’t know much about. It’s hard for me to follow along and remember it. I watch some fictional shows, like Game of Thrones or whatever, that’s a little easier. I like video games because I can follow along easier and they keep my brain occupied. I swear they should be sold as anti-depressants.
Would it work better if you watched the entire program two, three or even four times rather than chopping around? Context, flow, linkage, that sort of thing.
Fictional shows are good for just relaxing or for escaping, sort of. Stuff like Game of Thrones might help stimulate imaginative processes perhaps. I haven’t watched it but I’m aware of what it is.
I just get peeved when I see how inactive some kids get because of video games. There’s also the negative impact on the time that really does need to spent on other things, like homework, room cleaning, communicating with others etc. I think it has reduced the attention span and attention to detail of the coming generation. But maybe that’s just me being an ultra-conservative old fogey (excuse the slight tautology there).
How about not “pushing” either adoption or parenthood, but giving the woman information on both options and letting her decide for herself?
Other tasks to tackle Jack. ‘night :-)
“Would it work better if you watched the entire program two, three or even four times rather than chopping around? Context, flow, linkage, that sort of thing.”
I don’t know, I don’t normally have the time to do so. I might try it and see. One of the problem with documentaries is I think I have a lot of gaps in my knowledge that normal people don’t, I don’t know basic things that are common knowledge for most people. You might not notice when you read my comments online, but that’s because I can research online if I don’t know something and find out when I’m missing. Doing that for educational shows gets really time consuming and discouraging and makes me feel really dumb. But I can keep working on it.
” I just get peeved when I see how inactive some kids get because of video games. There’s also the negative impact on the time that really does need to spent on other things, like homework, room cleaning, communicating with others etc. I think it has reduced the attention span and attention to detail of the coming generation. But maybe that’s just me being an ultra-conservative old fogey (excuse the slight tautology there).”
Yeah I do agree there are drawbacks. And I do agree with the inactivity being a problem, I don’t let my kids play for longer than thirty minutes at a time, then they have to do something creative, active, etc (play outside, or make some pictures with crayons whatever). The cool things is a lot of video games are getting more interactive and active. The Wii is motion sensitive, they have WiiSports which has things like bowling and tennis, you actually physically move like you’re bowling or playing tennis, I play that with my son (my daughter does too but she’s rather small lol). You’re thinking like adventure games or RPGs, which are my vice and I have problems spending way too much time on them (addictive personality issues), but I am trying to limit my time on them. The trick with video games and kids is you gotta make them play the games that require competing and interacting with other people, like Wii games or Mario Party and all that. And I’m not kidding with the anti-depressant stuff, because I have really bad PTSD and depression, sometimes the only way I can get relief from intrusive suicidal thoughts and flashbacks is to immerse my brain in something like a video game, going for a run works sometimes too but being a single dad I can’t always just take off and go for a run.
Good night Reality.
“How about not “pushing” either adoption or parenthood, but giving the woman information on both options and letting her decide for herself?”
I agree with this, my problem is when I see people shame single motherhood, or act like adoption should be a first choice, especially with young mothers. It’s the lazy way out. It might be harder for us to support a young mom, help her finish her education and provide for her baby, but she should get as much support as possible if she wants to keep her baby. I don’t believe anyone should feel like they have to give up on raising their child because of school or finances.
There is no inaccuracy in stating that pro-choice is because all choices are supported while anti-choice doesn’t.
Reality,
All choices? You’re completely and utterly pro-choice?
So if I were to, say, drown my 4 year old that would be my choice right?
Or if I were to shoot my cat in the head? My choice?
How about something a *little* less drastic. What if I chose to stand on the street corner and sell my body? My choice? An interesting addition, I’m about 6 months pregnant, still my choice?
What if some 30-something year old guy wanted to have sex with a 14 year old girl and convinced her they were in love, and it was “consensual”. Would that be his choice? Their choice?
If a police officer wanted to seize my vehicle to pursue someone like, say, Ariel Castro, would it be my choice to say “no”?
What if I see an ambulance behind me but I really want to get to work early. Is pulling over my choice?
Call a spade a spade. You’re in support of the choice to abort. Not all choices ever in the span of human existence…or, I hope not! “Pro-choice” is intentionally vague.
Reality 1:11am
I didn’t ask if you were “just” pro abortion.
Also, can you just answer the questions?
Great post Mary Rose!
I hope you amused yourself coming up with that stuff MaryRose, then there might have been some point to it.
If you had been following the conversation, you’ll note that folks from your ‘team’ clarified that we were discussing the choices facing pregnant women. We identified the choices being discussed. And if you’d kept up you would note that I suggested that I be referred to as pro-support/abort/adopt and your ‘team’ as pro-not so much.
These questions Mary?
“Why is it that PC folks like yourself go through all these semantic gymnastics?” -we don’t, that’s your domain.
“Why don’t you just say you are pro abortion and leave it at that?” – because it would be a less than accurate statement.
From my 1:11am response:
“Can you name any other examples of an action where people argue they strongly support the choice to commit the action while opposing the action itself?” – yes. I’m sure you can too if you try, just a little bit.
“Also shouldn’t this rule apply across the board? Why just abortion?” – it’s not just abortion. Nor is it across the board though. (insert 3000 word historical/philosophical/anthropological thesis on the culmination of tens of thousands of years of developing civilizations’ arrival at recognised core behavioral expectations to maximize potential community harmony – don’t steal, don’t murder and don’t mow your neighbors grass){no I won’t be actually supplying it – I’m sure you’re capable of getting the gist}
Let me know if there’s anything of that you need explained.
Come on Reality,
A less than accurate statement? I can remember when people called themselves pro abortion and it left no question as to where they stood on the issue.
I asked YOU to name examples so please do.
I didn’t ask for a dissertation. So this rule applies across the board? I do recall in the movie “Lincoln” a legislator who while opposing slavery, did not support outlawing it. I suppose one could call him pro choice on slavery. Apparently one could oppose slavery, yet at the same time support someone’s “choice” to own a slave. So maybe this rule has applied across the board after all.
Since I support more than just abortion when it comes to womens reproductive choices, stating that I am simply pro-abortion under-represents things to the point of being a misnomer.
So if you really require clarification (although I strongly suspect you already get this)
“Can you name any other examples of an action where people argue they strongly support the choice to commit the action while opposing the action itself?” – consuming alcohol, non-marital sex, going to church, contraceptive use, eating meat, hunting, tattooing…..
And I don’t think it applies across the board, hence my words “…..the culmination of tens of thousands of years of developing civilizations’ arrival at recognised core behavioral expectations to maximize potential community harmony – don’t steal, don’t murder and don’t mow your neighbors grass.”
Reality,
It seems to me that animal rights advocates make no secret of their opposition to hunting. I don’t hear them argue that they oppose hunting, but support the choice to hunt. Concerning alcohol, ever hear of The Women’s Christian Temperance Union? How about those opposed to smoking? In some areas they want it forbidden in your own home. People who oppose such things as hunting and smoking certainly don’t advocate freedom of choice in these matters and they certainly don’t support laws that advocate for these activities.
Kind of makes you think that abortion advocates don’t really dislike or oppose abortion. I mean, can you imagine PETA opposing legislation that would require veterinary clinics and kennels to meet certain standards for the humane and safe care of animals and protect them from abusers?
Gee, too bad abortion advocates don’t have the same concern for women.
You don’t think it applies across the board? Apparently that legislator I mentioned would have begged to differ.
The question you asked was “Can you name any other examples of an action where people argue they strongly support the choice to commit the action while opposing the action itself?”
I have given you answers which are accurate. Your problem appears to be that you have assumed the extremist position. You have also added the term ‘advocate’, which is quite different to ‘strongly support the choice’.
For example. I am opposed to church going. But I support peoples choice to commit such an action. Yet I would not advocate for that position.
Certain people here are opposed to contraception but claim that they support peoples right to access it. But they sure wouldn’t advocate for it.
People don’t have to be ‘animal rights activists’ to oppose hunting. I don’t support hunting, but I understand that some people really, really enjoy it and some actually eat what they kill. So I support their right to hunt.
Not everyone who thinks drinking alcohol is bad and should be avoided is a member of the temperence movement and seeking to ban it.
Most of those who oppose smoking in the home only do so on the basis that children may be present.
There are numerous examples of people who oppose an activity but support peoples right to choose to undertake those actions. The examples I gave are some of these.
“Gee, too bad abortion advocates don’t have the same concern for women.” – just plain false. A spurious and unsupportable claim.
“You don’t think it applies across the board? Apparently that legislator I mentioned would have begged to differ.” – really? You only mentioned his position on slavery. Are you now going to enlighten me as to his position on everything else, across the board?
Reality,
Not extremist at all. When you truly opose something, you take a stand against it, whether everyone agrees with you or not. You don’t advocate someone’s choice to do it. Freedom of religion is guaranteed in our Constitution. You may not like the faith someone follows, but the law is the law. The same law protects you from those who don’t like your lack of faith.
Now do you suppose a person who truly opposes alcohol and wants to see alcohol abuse curbed is going to support the liquor industry? Someone who staunchly opposes contraception supporting its production? Hunting isn’t something I enjoy either and like you agree that if people want to hunt, fine. However, if we vehemently opposed it, and we wouldn’t have to be “animal advocates” can you imagine you or me supporting laws that enable hunters?
Its the dichotomy I’m trying to get across. People who insist they don’t like abortion, want to make it “rare”(yeah right) and only support the choice yet do everything to keep rathole clinics running and fight any laws to stop it. Give me other examples of this type of rationale.
A spurious claim? How did Kermit Gosnell keep his house of horrors going? He can thank a former PC Catholic governor of Pennsylvania who suspended clinic inspections. He was afraid too many would be forced to close. Check out Carhart’s Nebraska “clinic”, the converted muffler shop, complete with outdoor generator. Where are “women’s advocates” and safety standards? If these were kennels, you can bet PETA and the local Humane Society would never stand for it.
About the legislator, slavery was the moral issue of his day, much like abortion is a moral issue today. Being “pro-choice” on slavery then was like being “pro-choice” on abortion today, a great way to straddle the fence.
“When you truly oppose something, you take a stand against it, whether everyone agrees with you or not.” – quite evidently that is not the case.
“You don’t advocate someone’s choice to do it.’ – there you go adding the word ‘advocate’ in an attempt to ramp the situation up again.
“Freedom of religion is guaranteed in our Constitution. You may not like the faith someone follows, but the law is the law. The same law protects you from those who don’t like your lack of faith.” – what’s your point?
“Now do you suppose a person who truly opposes alcohol and wants to see alcohol abuse curbed is going to support the liquor industry?” – if we stick to the actual premise of your question, the question is, will they advocate for the banning of alcohol?
“Someone who staunchly opposes contraception supporting its production?” - if we stick to the actual premise of your question, the question is, will they advocate for the banning of contraception?
“Hunting isn’t something I enjoy either and like you agree that if people want to hunt, fine.” – it sounds like you may be getting the point but you’re still saying things which indicate otherwise.
“People who insist they don’t like abortion, want to make it “rare”(yeah right) and only support the choice yet do everything to keep rathole clinics running and fight any laws to stop it.” – that’s your opinion, not fact.
“Being “pro-choice” on slavery then was like being “pro-choice” on abortion today, a great way to straddle the fence.” – ah, resorting to type now then.
So what happened with that legislators position on everything?
Reality,
Ah, yes, you’ve cut me to the core. Because calling yourself “pro-choice” in reference to women’s reproductive rights is totally more legitimate than me calling myself “pro-life” in reference to the same. *eyeroll*
Yes, let’s get it really clear for everyone and see how much we can get the media to pursue calling you “pro-abort/adopt/parent” and me what? anti-abortion? I’ve never seen a pro-lifer balk so totally at the idea of being called anti-abortion as I regularly see pro-choicers balk at the idea of being called pro-abortion. For that matter, I’ve never seen a gun rights advocate who got so upset about being called pro-gun as “choicers” at being called pro-abortion.
“Choice” works because it’s ambiguous, not out of some desire to be more specific. Out of a desire to be more vague. Acting like anything you’d said in reference to adoption (red herring!) negates what you said about choice, or what I pointed out, just unveils you for a fraud in this respect.
Reality,
You brought up the example of religion.
I am pointing out to you that people who truly oppose something don’t advocate for it!
Reality, you’re not really giving me any kind of an intelligent argument, just short answers that say nothing.
Hi Mary Rose
“Choice” is indeed ambiguous. It makes fence straddling on any important moral issue a whole lot easier.
Wow, Mary and MaryRose, I am impressed by your patience with Reality’s nonsense. I honestly could not keep up a conversation with him for this long.
Hi JDC,
Thank you. Always the voice of reason. You bring up a great point. You are graciously teling me that you wouldn’t waste you time trying to reason with some people. Headslap.
“You are graciously teling me that you wouldn’t waste you time trying to reason with some people. Headslap.”
Oh Mary, you read too much into my comment. I was actually legitimately complimenting you on your patience. Please don’t take that the wrong way.
Wow, what happened to the formatting of my comment there? It’s a complete mess!
Hi JDC,
Don’t be concerned. I took it as a compliment, that’s why I thanked you. :) I am very sincere when I call you the voice of reason. What you said also made me realize some things are an exercise in futility!
“Acting like anything you’d said in reference to adoption (red herring!) negates what you said about choice, or what I pointed out, just unveils you for a fraud in this respect.” – no red herring. I also support support remember. Full choice, in regards to all three. Unlike yourself.
“I am pointing out to you that people who truly oppose something don’t advocate for it!” – well duh! And I’ve pointed out that they don’t always advocate against it.
It’s not my fault if you either can’t understand or won’t accept a simple concept.
People oppose certain behaviors without agitating against the rights of others to exhibit those behaviors. They believe that certain things should remain legal even though they don’t agree with them and would never do them themselves. I have given you examples of this. It’s not that difficult.