I read an interesting post by KushielsMoon, who comments here sometimes, on the Abortion Gang blog. Her June 2 piece was entitled, "The things I can't say":
As a vocal prochoicer, I am not able to always speak my mind.
Every single time I tweet, blog, email or post a comment somewhere, I have to carefully look over each and every word, to ensure that I haven't said something I "shouldn't."...
What are these things I "shouldn't" say? Well, basically it's anything an antichoicer could jump onto, take out of context, or otherwise use against me. Against us. Against Planned Parenthood. Against women.
I hate that I have to guard my speech. I hate that I have to turn conversations onto random tangents over word use. But if I don't do these things, antichoicers will run away with my words and ignore anything I say after that.
Kushie wrote she gets grief from fellow pro-aborts, too. Problems, she said, arise on such points as terminology ("So what if a woman calls a fetus a baby? So what if I follow her lead and say the word baby too?"), empathy ("If after her abortion she feels that her baby died and became an angel, then why can't I agree with her on that?"), and validation ("How are we 'believing the lies from the anti-choicers' by recognizing all reproductive experiences, and the emotions surrounding them, and believing that they are valid?")
Weekend question: Do you, like KushielsMoon, write your posts or comments on the life issue against a backdrop of politically correct paranoia?
Sometimes. But most of that is easy to shake if you get out of bad rhetorical habits (like calling an unborn child "it," for example).
I don't think pro-lifers run into the same sort of rhetorical problems as pro-aborts, though. Pro-lifers can acknowledge that there are women who don't regret their abortions without worry about what that's going to do to our argument. Pro-aborts have built their case for abortion with one foot on the grounds that it helps women. Every woman who is hurt by abortion is materially dangerous to them and must be silenced, marginalized, or otherwise unacknowledged. Pro-lifers can acknowledge there are women who don't connect with their unborn children as people without it hurting our case, too. Acknowledging there are women who do is something else pro-aborts can't do without concern for how that's going to hurt their case, because this is where their other foot is standing: "nobody sees a fetus as a person."
Pro-lifers can acknowledge all this because our case is grounded on a bunch of "ises." The unborn child is human. It is wrong to kill innocent human beings. Abortion is surgery which makes it dangerous and potentially harmful. Abortion is a procedure that kills a human being. All these ises, that you can phrase almost any way you like (so long as you remain true to the essentials) are where we ground our case, and it doesn't really matter what words you pick when you're saying "abortion kills children." Or how anyone might feel about those words. You're still talking about children who die because our society says it's okay (see, I wrote that last sentence entirely off-the-cuff, and I wasn't worried about what the pro-aborts would think of it).
So, from Kushiel's post, I'm taking away two points. One, pro-aborts don't view the unborn as such an alien thing as they pretend to. Two, and this is the important bit, she's actually right. Because a bunch of pro-aborts running around talking about the unborn as human matters. Personhood is not a subjective concept, and if some of the unborn are persons, all of them are, regardless of what it does to her argument. If pro-aborts are going to start acknowledging some abortions as tragic, wrong, and bad, we should be ready to suggest that all of them are, whether anyone involved with them feels that way or not. To point out that things that are wrong continue to be wrong even when we don't feel wrong about them.
Huh. I suppose pro-aborts do have to be more careful. I guess this is like I said on the post the other day. Rhetorical spin becomes very important when you don't have a real or valid argument.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 5, 2010 7:04 AM
KushielsMoon is only feeling the pressure and dictates of her very own movement, and for good reason.
If you use clear and simple terminology, like calling the child a baby, then the direct and simple understanding is that abortion is killing the baby.
Even her blog post on this dances around the subject by avoiding simple and direct terms:
Wow. What, exactly, are we doing wrong? What sort of disservice do we do by believing pregnant people need compassionate care while undergoing surgical procedures? Or, at the very least, that they might want a bit more emotional and informational support while they undergo a highly mystified and generally misunderstood surgery?
Who but the pro-aborts makes abortion highly mystified? Why focus on the procedure and not the intended outcome? I went in for a hernia surgery. The end result was the defective wall was repaired - the objective. Why can't Planned Parenthood say they specialize in killing and removing dead babies from pregnant women?
Come now KushielsMoon, can't you just simply say, "I know that they are innocent human beings, but I think it's perfectly fine for a mother to hire assassins to violently kill and dismember her own children."
After all, no one's going for an abortion to have a "reproductive experience", they are going to terminate the relationship and the child, and there's plenty of evidence to indicate such terminations are violent and particularly gruesome.
Okay - my answer to Jill's question. I don't worry about having to couch my words in particular forums because the truth needs to be told. This has brought up emotional reminders which to some seems cold-hearted, but those who understand the enormity of emotional and consequential impact of abortion (it's driving the US to insanity) also know truth cannot be shielded no matter how painful. Someone, perhaps many, will benefit from exposing the truth.
That said, I often must carefully consider how I express something, so it won't be taken out of context and used against me. For instance, I will often compare the results of a suction aspiration abortion to running a normal sized human through a wood chipper, because the end result is similar. I think people have been desensitized to what that really means, however if they had to encounter it in reality - it would be sickening and revolting, an absolute horror.
Abortion is a worldwide nightmare. It is the ultimate weapon of choice for population control, and the control of human beings. Nothing more, nothing less. The devil holds the strings.
So when you - KushielsMoon feel the pressure, it's naturally coming from your cause.
If you truly rip off the mask, and uncover the total reality of abortion, the entire world would gasp in horror, then simply go insane.
So we fight - some trying to pull back the covering to reveal the nightmare, while others desperately hold on to the madness.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 5, 2010 7:08 AM
what a great comment Keli!
Unfortunately, what has happened to our society is that we have a form of soft totalitarianism.
You can't speak out about the unborn, gays, same-sex marriage or anything that goes against the secular humanist agenda.
It's all about choice, personal autonomy at the expense of everything else including freedom to think and speak what we believe.
Interesting thing is that proaborts label anyone with opposing views as repressive.
In fact it is the secular humanists that will not allow public discourse.
All reproductive experiences are valid? What's that supposed to mean?
And I am so annoyed by this dead babies becoming angels thing. We will be like angels; we won't be angels. This is newage crap, not a Christian belief. Dead babies become saints in heaven, perhaps, but not angels. It's as misled as believing that a dead baby will come back to you later, or be reincarnated in some other form. No, those children are and always have been human beings. There was nothing about them to set them below us or above us. They were always human--and they always will be.Posted by: ycw at June 5, 2010 7:24 AM
If pro-aborts are going to start acknowledging some abortions as tragic, wrong, and bad, we should be ready to suggest that all of them are, whether anyone involved with them feels that way or not. To point out that things that are wrong continue to be wrong even when we don't feel wrong about them.
Posted by: Keli Hu at June 5, 2010 7:04 AM
Keli- excellent comments.
To put the above clip in dry logical terms - pro-aborts must maintain abortion as a universal good. (A universal is one that always, and under every circumstance applies, or is true.)
To logically break a universal - show that it is not always true, kills any argument that relies upon that universal being true.
So pro-aborts have to defend against a universal being broken or exposed as being a non-universal.
That's an accounting with reality.
To hold onto the belief that a non-universal is a universal is to be either intellectually dishonest (you do it on purpose) or to be disconnected from reality - you're insane.
I suggest that doing the former eventually leads to the latter.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 5, 2010 7:26 AM
We certainly don't try to "mystify" abortion. Pro-lifers will tell you exactly what happens in abortion. Partial birth abortion got pretty well demystified and... huh. Everyone thought it was repulsive, evil, and needed to be stopped.
KushieIsMoon, join us in demystifying abortion. Let's demystify it until it's perfectly clear what it is and what it does. Maybe then women won't need so much support because they won't be choosing it.Posted by: ycw at June 5, 2010 7:37 AM
Keli and Chris, excellent, well-thought out comments, thanks.
As for me, the one area I have to be careful is using terms in my writing such as "shoot," or "shot in the dark," or "moving target," etc., that pro-aborts will take out of context and claim I am condoning violence. This really aggravates me, because I don't like the thought that I'm caving to political correctness.Posted by: Jill Stanek at June 5, 2010 7:42 AM
I should probably clarify for you- part of the post got messed up and hasn't been fixed yet. The following part is a quote, which in the abortiongang post looks like it is part of my own words:
"I got this email in the Spectrum Doula Collective inbox earlier this week:
I know you think you’re doing good, but you are not. You are doing a grave disservice to the pro-choice movement by believing the lies from the anti-choicers. Please email me back, we can talk more about this, but please consider what you are doing before you proceed any further.
Wow. What, exactly, are we doing wrong? What sort of disservice do we do by believing pregnant people need compassionate care while undergoing surgical procedures? Or, at the very least, that they might want a bit more emotional and informational support while they undergo a highly mystified and generally misunderstood surgery?
How are we “believing the lies from the anti-choicers” by recognizing all reproductive experiences (and the emotions surrounding them) and believing that they are valid?"
(see: Exhale is Pro-Voice)
I wouldn't call my carefully-worded language as "paranoia" but, hey, to each their own.Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 8:13 AM
Keli Hu makes a mistake that I wish both prochoiers and antichoicers would stop doing.
Which is to refer to the whole movement as if we have one conscious, which is the same among all peoples.
I know there are prochoicers who think a fetus isn't alive. I know there are prochoicers who think a fetus is alive. To act as if we all believe and think and say the same things is dishonest.
The same applies for antichoicers. The post about protesting outside of an abortion provider's home shows that you do not all think the same.
It can be difficult, but I try to make an effort to not generalize about the entire movement. Sometimes I fail, but I still try. I hope others will try to do the same. It's easy- just say "most" or "some" instead of assuming "all."
Chris Arsenault - I don't believe we need to maintain abortion as a universal good. Heart surgery can go wrong, and people can die- we still think it's good overall, even if it isn't good for the people it failed to help. Cesarean sections are good for women who cannot naturally birth (about 15% of births), but are very very bad for women who *can* have a vaginal birth. Abortion is definitely wrong for a woman who does not want to have one, but is being coerced into it.
Thank you to everyone for being civil.Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 8:27 AM
"I know there are prochoicers who think a fetus isn't alive. I know there are prochoicers who think a fetus is alive. To act as if we all believe and think and say the same things is dishonest."
Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 8:27 AM
No, that's not what I said. And here's where you're making a mistake that pro-aborts--yes, as a collective--have all made. Because I'm talking about how the pro-abortion argument, as a whole, is grounded. What it rests on. And I've yet to see any pro-abort who didn't, ultimately, rest his or her arguments in exactly this same place.
You have grounded your argument on spin-doctoring. It's all about choice, and it's all about helping people to feel good about their choices. But when dealing with facts, it is possible to make a wrong choice and feel good about it. And regardless of your feelings on the subject, good or otherwise, the wrong choice is still wrong.
It is irrelevant what you believe or think about a fact. A fact continues to be fact whether you believe it or not. It doesn't matter whether you think the unborn are human or alive or valuable or people. They are all those things regardless of your opinion on them. It is immaterial whether you feel abortion is bad or wrong or good or right. It is wrong no matter how you feel about it.
These are the ises. And that some pro-aborts recognize that an unborn child is human in some cases, means that--if they're consistent--they must be willing to face that this is true in all cases. People aren't people contingent on whether we feel like they are or not. Reality isn't wishy-washy, and your emotions matter not one bit to a fact.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 5, 2010 8:48 AM
I wasn't talking about the "facts" as you put it. I was talking about the claims you made about prochoicers. For instance:
"Acknowledging there are women who do is something else pro-aborts can't do without concern for how that's going to hurt their case, because this is where their other foot is standing: "nobody sees a fetus as a person.""
There are prochoicers who claim that some people see a fetus as a person, and are willing to acknowledge that (that was kind of the point of my post, acknowledging things which antis might take out of context).
"One, pro-aborts don't view the unborn as such an alien thing as they pretend to."
I do believe there are some prochoicers who see the fetus as something alien. While others do not. To claim that all prochoicers feel the same about fetuses is, again, dishonest.
"It is irrelevant what you believe or think about a fact."
In general, you might believe this. But when talking about prochoice beliefs, it is relevant.Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 9:02 AM
Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 8:27 AM
You avoid something entirely central to the discussion.
"Then the baby is killed."
Your avoidance of this simply makes our case.
No matter how you dress it up, even if it's non-universal, killing an innocent human being is not a good. Period.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 5, 2010 9:09 AM
I am careful to use language which pro-choicers agree with. So, for example, I use the terms fetus and D & X instead of baby and partial-birth abortion, respectively. The reason I do this is because many pro-choicers will tend to completely ignore your argument and instead focus on the words and language you used. I try to never give them a single opening so that they have no "choice" but to respond to my actual points. I truly believe the entire pro-choice movement is built on a solid foundation of semantics and that this is very much reflected in the average pro-choicer today.
So yes, I do bend my knee to the pro-choice vocabulary, but for the purpose of trying to keep focused on the issue. An average pro-choicer will debate semantics all day, and I simply can not keep up with that, so I figure better to not get involved in word debates. Call abortion the "happy-rainbows-puppy procedure", I don't really care. I'm more interested in WHAT abortion is rather than what you call it.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 5, 2010 9:09 AM
KushielsMoon: I appreciate civility too. On that note, could you stop calling us "antichoicers", please?
Anyway, I don't feel as though I have to carefully consider what words I use, probably because I'm a "word person" in general and I always do my best to say exactly what I mean about everything from abortion to politics to what I thought about a movie. If someone misinterprets what I say, I see that as their issue, not mine, because I said what I meant in the first place.
Off-topic: Today is my birthday. I'm glad I have one. Seeing as I've got Christmas money still, I'm going to buy a ton of baby clothes on clearance (so I can get as many as possible) and donate them to a crisis pregnancy center. I was looking at baby clothes the other day in Kohls - the girl ones are so adorable, but ack, why do about 85% of the boy ones have either brown, orange, or lime green on them? Will have to buy the other 15%.
I hope everybody has a good day! :DPosted by: Marauder at June 5, 2010 9:11 AM
"There are prochoicers who claim that some people see a fetus as a person, and are willing to acknowledge that (that was kind of the point of my post, acknowledging things which antis might take out of context)."
No, see, I got that. You're not taking the next step, and I think you're not taking it on purpose. People don't magically appear when you want them to and turn into things when they're inconvenient. People are people whether you believe that they're people or not. And if some unborn are people, all unborn are people. Whether you want them to be or not. That's not out of context, that's just the logical conclusion.
This is kryptonite for your argument.
"I do believe there are some prochoicers who see the fetus as something alien. While others do not. To claim that all prochoicers feel the same about fetuses is, again, dishonest."
This goes back to what I said before. The pro-abortion argument is grounded on viewing the unborn as things that do not deserve protection. Anyone who views them as people, as someone who is valuable, is dangerous to the cause. You know this because you've felt like you had to self-censor lest "the antis" come along and "take you out of context." Because in your heart of hearts, I think you do realize what we're saying. If the unborn are valuable, they deserve to be protected. And killing them because they're "unwanted" is wrong. Whether you feel wrong about it or not.
"'It is irrelevant what you believe or think about a fact.'
"In general, you might believe this. But when talking about prochoice beliefs, it is relevant."
Only when talking about "pro-choice" beliefs to pro-choicers. That's exactly what I've been saying this whole time. You guys are concerned with how people feel about what they're doing. Pro-lifers are concerned with what people are doing. Feelings about the matter are irrelevant to the facts. You can dress abortion up any number of ways, but at the end of the day, you're still talking about killing children, and that's always the issue that pro-lifers are going to come back to.
And that's why you, and all of your pro-abortion cohort, can't call these people "people." It's why you can't call them "babies." It's why you have to self-censor and edit and revise. Because we're not taking you out of context, we're reminding you of the facts. Of what your euphemisms mean. What they do to human beings.
That's not going to stop just because you've decided not to edit anymore. If anything, it's going to get more intense.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 5, 2010 9:28 AM
We don't need to mince around because we're speaking truth. You don't have to try to remember what lie you told, or what the "talking point" of the week is if all you're doing is speaking truth.
Shoot, I even include horrible "back alley" abortions in my Cemetery of Choice and on my blog, even when a particular death doesn't score rhetorical points, because I'm about TRUTH, and these deaths, like the "all surgery has risks" pre-legal deaths and quackery-abundant post-legal deaths, need to be included as facts. Censoring things that you think might "score points" for "the other side" is a sign that you're basing your stand on something less than reality.Posted by: Christina at June 5, 2010 9:41 AM
Regarding Susan B Anthony being "pro-life" - Ann Gordon and Lynn Sheer, both Anthony scholars, posit that there is no evidence that Susan B Anthony opposed abortion. The information, promulgaged by those who seek to make her anti-abortion, is from an article in a paper owned by Anthony. This article is signed "A" and there is no data to suggest that Anthony wrote it. The anonymous author then goes on to oppose laws demanding the suppression of abortion. Anthony's comment about her sister in law, who was bedridden after an abortion, "ruing the day she forced nature" is not necessarily about the act of abortion but about doing something that affected her health. (Like what many women did to terminate their pregnancies before Roe). It is clear that Anthony was devoted to her friend Elizabeth Cady Stanton - but it is also clear, from Anthony's writings, that she was frustrated that Stanton needed to take so much time off, from the movement, because of repeated childbirth. Anthony also believed that religion had no place in politics. Stanton was a free thinker who did not raise her children in a religious milieu. Anyway, it is not clear that Anthony was "pro-life."Posted by: Vanessa at June 5, 2010 9:41 AM
Excuses and reasons why women destroy unborn childrens life
1 This is my body they say. Thats a classic one & its the same four words jesus said at his last supper. Instead women use it for an excuse to murder innocent unborn children.
2 the guy says he does not want the baby.
3 the parents won't help them out.
4 the baby would interfere with their lives.
5 had troubling issues with their relantionship & don't want to be a single parent.
6 doctor says their health condition would worsen.
7 the baby has a abnormality.
8 the women was the victim of rape and incest.
9 money problems
not trying be rude just trying figure of if anyone who had and abortion felt this way or used one of these for the reason you got one
There was one time in my youth when I told a very big lie. And then I had to defend that lie and make it seem plausible to convince people it was the truth. It was exhausting how much energy I had to consume, watching everything I said lest I undermine the 'reality' I had constructed. The whole time I felt so paranoid that I would be found out. When you are defending a lie, you really have to watch what you say because the whole thing is not resting on truth, but on the word pyramid you have constructed trying to make my own version of 'truth' seem plausible. I never have been so concerned with semantics outside that experience.
On the other hand, when you are defending the truth, the facts speak for themselves. Reality shines through without much effort at all. You don't have to work to keep people from asking the "wrong" questions or from making logical conclusions. It is so much more freeing to the mind and easier to breathe when you don't have to defend a lie.
I think this is the reason pro-choicers feel like they have to self-censor all the time. They even sensor their own thought lest they convince themselves that abortion is wrong. They have to be so careful not to use any words which would make somebody leap to logical conclusions of the reality of abortion. They even have to say things they themselves know aren't true (like those awful "heart-tones" or "nofacenoheartnoarmsnolegs" LiveAction videos). It must be exhausting.Posted by: Scott at June 5, 2010 9:58 AM
Happy birthday Marauder!
When I speak or write with someone one on one, I take the Bobby Bambino approach and try to use their vernacular and reason with them to try to get them to see the truth: that abortion kills an unborn child.
When posting here, I like to let 'er rip. I try to use words and phrases that set a literary tone approaching that of a CBR GAP exhibit. I realize that most in the pro-death mob will dismiss my comments as inflammatory, but I am not directing my comments to them primarily.
I'm trying to light a fire under the Church.
I see the world from a Christian and spiritual perspective and I know abortion is one of satan's primary weapons against Man, killing untold hundreds of millions and severely wounding so many young women.
It's an unspeakable tragedy.
Like Jill, I must be careful when I write from a perspective of spiritual warfare and the need to be spiritually "violent" (intense, committed, forceful, adamant...), that I'm not perceived as promoting or condoning any type of physical violence.
I also realize that my spiritual perspective has got to be quite annoying to all of my brothers and sisters-in-arms in the Pro-Life Army that are not believers.
To them I would say that to me, the only tragedy that would be worse than a baby being ripped apart in its mother's womb, or a young girl being sold into sexual slavery, is that you would die in your sins, without a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Like the young pregnant woman on her way to the child-killing "clinic", so many don't know what awaits them when they leave this world.
This also is an unspeakable tragedy.
Jesus loves you so much...Posted by: Ed at June 5, 2010 10:03 AM
Anti-choicers can say that life begins at birth and that the fetus is alive all they want,but these are moot questions, because this will never stop women from having abortions. They will happen no matter what people call the fetus.
You can't get around this inconvenietnt fact.
Abortion is inevitable. You can't stop it period,no matter what you try to do.
Calling abortion "murder",which is ludicrous won't stop it either. Abortions aren't done for the same reasons as murder. They arent done with malice toward a born person.
But making abortion illegal again in America won't stop them,but only make abortion more dangerous,and I guarantee you, many women will die or be seriously harmed.
Right to life? What aboput the right to decent food,shelter,clothing education and medical care?
As long as poor pregnant women are unable to provide these things for their children,born or unborn,abortion will be common.
People who say that "abortion must be ended" are deluding themselves. This will never happen.
I sympathise with KushielsMoon, it must not be easy constantly making sure she doesn't acknowledge the humanity of the unborn.
Defending genocide can't be easy...Posted by: Jasper at June 5, 2010 10:15 AM
What Scott said. No need to keep the story straight when you deal only in truths.
Referring to their side as prochoice was a terrible move. They should have stuck with proabortion. Using the word 'choice' only admits to themselves and others that they have a choice whether or not to kill the child.
When proaborts call me antichoice, I take it as a compliment. I am against the choice some humans make to kill other humans.
Proaborts know deep-down they support themselves and others making a conscience choice to kill humans for money and convenience when there are life-affirming options available and supported.Posted by: Praxedes at June 5, 2010 10:16 AM
"Anti-choicers can say that life begins at birth and that the fetus is alive all they want,but these are moot questions, because this will never stop women from having abortions. They will happen no matter what people call the fetus. You can't get around this inconvenietnt fact. Abortion is inevitable. You can't stop it period,no matter what you try to do"
Robert, I'm trying to figure out what you're trying to say here by summarizing it in a syllogism, but I"m having a very hard time. As far as I can tell, this is what I'm seeing:
Major premise: omitted, but I think it is something along the following lines:
If an action can not be stopped in an absolute sense, then ??.
I can't figure out what the conclusion of the major premise is, but it may be something about legality...
Minor premise: Abortion can not be stopped in an absolute sense.
I can't figure out the conclusion of the syllogism without the conclusion to the major premise. How would you phrase and defend your major premise?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 5, 2010 10:21 AM
Vanessa: You realize the article you linked to actually presents evidence against your point, right?
Ed: Thanks. :DPosted by: Marauder at June 5, 2010 10:33 AM
Happy Birthday, Marauder!! :)
Bobby Bambino taking on Mr. Berger!!! Whoo Hoo!Posted by: carla at June 5, 2010 10:51 AM
What I said was not a syllogism,but a simple statement of fact. You can't stop abortion,period.
Making it illegal is merely extremely counterproductive. The only way to deal with this problem is to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible,and to provide more help to poor pregnant women,married or single.
The problem is that anti-choicers are approaching the problem of abortion the wrong way.
They have the totally unrealistic expectation that if we make it illegal in America,it will stop,or at least be greatly reduced.
But they are deluding themselves.This will only increase the number of abortions,cause the death of many pregnant women,leave many children who have been born motherless,and leave many women seriously hurt who don't die from abortions.
It will also bring many more children into the world who are doomed to lives of abject poverty,malnutriition,lack of education and opportunity in life, and to be surrounded by squalor,hopelessness, drugs,crime and violence, cause more and more children to be abused and or neglected,and increase poverty,unemployment and crime.
It will be a vicious cycle. And to make contrecptives illegal,a s some anti-choice imbeciles want, will cause an even greater number of abortions and create a black market in contraceptives.
And pregnant women who can afford it will easily fly off to Europe or elsewhere for safe,legal abortions. Furthermore, there will be absolutely no way to enforce the law if abortion becomes illegal again. It will be totally futile,and any attempts to enforce the law will create an egregious intrusion into the private lives of many Americans.
Unless this nation and the governemnt does more to change conditions in society so that women are far less likely to seek and obtain abortions, they will remain common no matter what we do.
"What I said was not a syllogism,but a simple statement of fact."
Yes, I realize it was not a syllogism which is why I desired to put it into the form of a syllogism. I assume you are trying to make an argument, and any argument can be put into the form of a syllogism. I'm still trying to figure out what follows from your ``statement of fact." All you are doing is arguing for your minor premise, which I am more than willing to grant you for the sake of argument. What is your MAJOR premise and how do you justify it? In other words, what is the overall principle which you use to inform your belief about what should be done as regards the legality of abortion? Is it "If an action can not be stopped in an absolute sense, then it should be legal" or some variation of that?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 5, 2010 11:12 AM
"This [making abortion illegal] will only increase the number of abortions"
How in the world do you justify this statement? You need to argue that everyone who would have had an abortion when it was legal will also have one when it is illegal, and show that there will be people who would NOT have had an abortion when it was legal but who WILL have an abortion when it is illegal in order to demonstrate an INCREASE in abortion. Can you give me an example of a situation in which a person who would not have had an abortion when it was legal will choose to get an abortion when it is illegal?
"cause the death of many pregnant women"
How does telling someone that they should not engage in a particular action and then having them do it and killing themselves cause them to be responsible for their death? If I do not allow you to rob a bank, and then you go ahead and rob a bank anyway and end up getting killed, how is my telling you not to rob a bank the cause of your death? This is such a baffling argument to me. The government deems an action illegal. Someone goes and does it anyway and gets themselves killed for engaging in an action taht they were told not to engage in in teh first place, and it is somehow the fault of teh one who said they shouldn't do it in the first place?Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 5, 2010 11:23 AM
"Can you give me an example of a situation in which a person who would not have had an abortion when it was legal will choose to get an abortion when it is illegal?"
I am one example of that. For me, going through a wanted pregnancy in a society where abortion is illegal is like having consensual sex with a person who would rape me if I told him to stop. It would be violating.
I can't speak for Robert, but I think he may be saying that anti-choice ideals include not only making abortion illegal, but refusing to teach sex-ed in schools which will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (thus increasing the number of abortions).
(Let the personal attacks begin! I'm out. :) )Posted by: ProChoiceGal at June 5, 2010 11:32 AM
What PCG? Not going to stay and argue your position? Figures.Posted by: carla at June 5, 2010 11:49 AM
Robert Berger, I think what Bobby's trying to get you to rethink is your assertion that because there will always be abortion, we should make it legal. If that is your major premise, then logically it follows that because there will always be robbery, we should make theft legal; because there will always be murder, we should make murder legal; because there will always be drug use, we should make drug use legal; etc. See the faulty nature of that premise?Posted by: Sylvia at June 5, 2010 11:53 AM
"I am one example of that."
Your one example of many things PCG. There are small percentages of people who believe sex with children and slavery should be legal too. Take everything prolifers say as a personal attack if you want but the fact is that I've yet to meet anyone who is willing to put their real name with the kinds of things you condone and accuse others of.
When abortion becomes illegal, will you be willing to break the law and still perfom them? You've been asked this question before PCG but don't answer it. Oh, right, it requires answering truthfully -- the Truth being something that has been proven you struggle with. (:Posted by: Praxedes at June 5, 2010 11:54 AM
Thanks for the response. I guess I don't quite understand, though. I get that you would feel violated having sex somewhere where abortion was illegal, but would you still have sex then? Wouldn't you not have sex to avoid this feeling that you mentioned above? Also, if you did have sex and had a wanted pregnancy, you WOULD abort just because it is illegal?
"I can't speak for Robert, but I think he may be saying that anti-choice ideals include not only making abortion illegal, but refusing to teach sex-ed in schools which will increase the number of unwanted pregnancies."
Okay, I can see where you are coming from on this. I try to take one issue at a time and not congeal all these issue together right now though, and I don't think that sex education changes would necessarily follow, at least not for a while. Either way, sort of a moot point and not terribly pertinent to anything. Thanks for the response.Posted by: Bobby Bambino at June 5, 2010 11:57 AM
"It will also bring many more children into the world who are doomed to lives of abject poverty,malnutriition,lack of education and opportunity in life, and to be surrounded by squalor,hopelessness, drugs,crime and violence, cause more and more children to be abused and or neglected,and increase poverty,unemployment and crime."
Mr. Berger, It sounds like you've been reading Margaret Sanger. Her premise is that children cause poverty, crime, hopelessness, etc. Therefore, the number of children per family should be reduced, and for those who are "morons", "imbeciles", "unfit", as evidenced by poverty, babies should be avoided at all costs(from Sanger's "Pivot of Civilization"). Not only was she wrong, but her thoughts were downright scary (the majority of enlisted men in the military were also "morons", according to a "study" she cited).
Killing babies is not the solution to poverty, abuse, etc. What is the solution is a true change to a Christian culture, where marriage is valued, supported, and strengthened; children are seen as gifts, not burdens; sexual relations occur only in marriage where both mother and father are available to nurture and support children; contraception is seen truthfully to attack the heart of the relationship of husband and wife, and hormonal contraception to destroy early human life in the womb and the health of women through breast cancer, stroke, heart disease, etc.; pornography is dispelled as an attack on personhood; and so much more. While this solution may not be attainable in this life, it certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
Oh, and as for censoring word choice, the Truth needs no censorship, other than to try to present it in charity.
Marauder - I don't think "antichoicer" is uncivil. There are people here using "pro-abort" which I don't necessarily agree with. Happy birthday, though. I'm glad you're taking time to donate to those in need.
Keli Hu - I think we are misunderstanding each other. You are talking about people considering some fetuses to be babies and other fetuses are not. I am talking about some people thinking fetuses are babies, and other people thinking fetuses are not. This is not to comment on which person is right or wrong, but to comment on the different beliefs held by different people.
"The pro-abortion argument is grounded on viewing the unborn as things that do not deserve protection. Anyone who views them as people, as someone who is valuable, is dangerous to the cause."
I do not agree with either of these statements. For some prochoicers, their argument is grounded in that perhaps. But not all prochoicers. I do not think people who view fetuses are persons are dangerous to the prochoice cause (unless they are also fighting to make abortion illegal, but that's a different topic).
" If anything, it's going to get more intense."
See, this is what I'm partially afraid of. You're going to ignore the actual conversation, and focus solely on the words "person" and "baby." It ruins our ability to have a discussion.
Many people here have talked about the prochoice argument being based in lies. I obviously do not agree with this. Calling a fetus a fetus is not a lie. Continuously using the term fetus instead of baby is not lying, but it is something many prochoicers do so that antichoicers do not take one look at the word baby and run away with wild assumptions. Some people here have hinted at those assumptions already ('well if you believe this, then this must be true...').
It's very frustrating that we cannot have an honest conversation with each other.Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 12:33 PM
In answer to the question do proaborts make me paranoid?
I do try very hard in my comments to think of others that are postabortive and struggling though and if my abortion story encourages them to seek help I am glad! I would also hope they would get in touch with me. My intention is not to shame those that are hurting after their abortions. I also don't try to shame those who are not hurting after their abortions.Posted by: carla at June 5, 2010 12:37 PM
The lie I was referring to is the denial that
1. Human beings have a right to life
2. Killing innocent human beings is wrong.
2. Fetuses are innocent human beings
3. Fetuses have a right to life
4. Killing fetuses is wrong.
This is a simple truth that even children intuitively understand. It is a lie to deny any of these truths and society is destabilized by failing to adhere to them, resulting in murder, low birth rate and subsequent failing of a culture and economy, loose sex, euthanasia, suicide, etc.
Or how about the lie that PP LOVES to tell: that you can have sex whenever with whomever without consequences (also known as "safe" sex). This lie is obviously wrong as seen by the need for abortion (even by those contracepting) the spread of STD's (even among those using "safe" sex) unexpected pregnancies, damaged abilities to form relationships or trust men/women, etc.
A more honest title would be "risk-reducing" sex. There is no such thing as "safe" sex free of any consequences.Posted by: Scott at June 5, 2010 1:45 PM
"I think we are misunderstanding each other. You are talking about people considering some fetuses to be babies and other fetuses are not. I am talking about some people thinking fetuses are babies, and other people thinking fetuses are not. This is not to comment on which person is right or wrong, but to comment on the different beliefs held by different people."
I sincerely doubt you misunderstood me before, but I will state my point one more time.
Your belief about what the unborn is does not affect in any way what the unborn actually is. And it is that actuality which, regardless of your opinion on it, makes abortion wrong. I understand what you're saying (there are lots of different abortion experiences, and a position that respects all those choices must respect all those experiences of that choice), but you're not hearing what I'm saying. You can not respect all the experiences of a choice if you believe some of those experiences are invalid or untrue. And the only way to justify abortion is to do that. Because if you validate the position "Some of the unborn are people." you must, by logical necessity, validate the position "All of the unborn are people." Personhood is not a label that can be applied only to some members of a group and not others because of some outside force's whims. Either all of the unborn are persons or none of them are. Either all of them are babies or none of them are. Either all of them are valuable or none of them are.
The only, moral next step is to say, "Therefore it is wrong to kill them unless they are threatening someone's life." Any other next step would be morally reprehensible.
"'The pro-abortion argument is grounded on viewing the unborn as things that do not deserve protection. Anyone who views them as people, as someone who is valuable, is dangerous to the cause.'
"I do not agree with either of these statements. For some prochoicers, their argument is grounded in that perhaps. But not all prochoicers. I do not think people who view fetuses are persons are dangerous to the prochoice cause (unless they are also fighting to make abortion illegal, but that's a different topic)."
See above re: consistency.
"'If anything, it's going to get more intense.'
"See, this is what I'm partially afraid of. You're going to ignore the actual conversation, and focus solely on the words 'person' and 'baby.' It ruins our ability to have a discussion."
No, it ruins your ability to say, "Abortion is okay." "Person" means something. Among other things, it means that you may not--morally--"terminate" a person because they are "unwanted," "unplanned," or otherwise "unintended." It means that any attempt to justify a position that does allow for this is wrong. These are words that have moral values attached to them. So, yes, pro-lifers are going to be reminding you of that every single time you use them. In fact, reminding people of this is one of the major reasons why the pro-life movement exists. What else did you think we'd be doing?
"It's very frustrating that we cannot have an honest conversation with each other."
I think you're working with a different definition of "honest" than the one in the dictionary, here. Especially because, in some of the things you mentioned both on your blog and in your posts here, to hold some of the positions you say you do, and believe that abortion is not morally wrong is inconsistent and hypocritical. Saying things like "If you believe [X], then [Y] must be true..." is not dishonest. It's how you debate. As I said before, this is the whole point of the movement. To say this sort of thing. To raise social tension about abortion and its effects. It's not like we're suddenly going to quit because you're acknowledging that the social tension we set out to create does, in fact, exist.
Which is why we're going to keep reminding you that when you call someone a person, regardless of why you made the decision to use that word, there are certain things that means about how you interact with that person. And that it especially means you're not allowed to kill them because they aren't wanted.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 5, 2010 1:48 PM
I never censor myself. I agree with everything Chris Arsenault and Bobby Bambino said. The pro-choice side is built on a foundation of semantics. How else could they justify the reality of abortion? They can't and they know it. Thats why they constantly trip over their tongues.Posted by: Sydney M. at June 5, 2010 1:54 PM
It isn't necessarily a bad thing to watch our tongues, to triple-check our facts, to rethink our assertions. It keeps us from being carried away by our emotions, and grounds us in facts (spoken passionately!).
Allowing ourselves to be grounded in what we understand to be the facts, on both sides, is the necessary prerequisite for progress in dialog. So, it isn't all terrible.
So for me, the concern isn't about being loved or respected by the opposition. I can't control that. My concern is speaking the truth out of love (forcefully if necessary).Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 5, 2010 2:07 PM
"Your belief about what the unborn is does not affect in any way what the unborn actually is."
I know this. My whole point is that I'm not discussing actually, but discussing those beliefs.
"Because if you validate the position "Some of the unborn are people." you must, by logical necessity, validate the position "All of the unborn are people." "
I have no idea where you got the idea of "some of the unborn are people." This is what I tried to clarify in my last post- I am not talking about some fetuses being people, but instead some people believing one thing and others believing a different thing (which brings us back to you telling me beliefs don't matter, which brings me back to saying I'm talking about beliefs, not actuality; repeat ad nauseum).
As for the rest of your post, Keli Hu, you have run away with the words "person" and "baby," making vast assumptions and claims. Exactly what I expected at least one antichoicer to do. Like I said, you have ruined our ability to have a *discussion.*Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 2:21 PM
Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 2:21 PM
Well, at least you've admitted you are deliberately not going to the logical conclusions. I suppose that's something, anyway.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 5, 2010 2:43 PM
that you can have sex whenever with whomever without consequences (also known as "safe" sex). Posted by: Scott at June 5, 2010 1:45 PM
Not just the disease aspect, but also the sexual predator aspect. Does being "pro-choice" include supporting a minor's decision to continue victimization? Or to enable further predation by failure to report a crime? If not, why are proaborts (the public players, not commenters here) reluctant to address this aspect of their industry?Posted by: Fed Up at June 5, 2010 2:45 PM
Keli Hu, you remind me of the profound statement by Dr. Seuss "A person is a person, no matter how small". Great posts. Carry on.
BTW I appreciate the civil dialog too KushielsMoon.
There goes Berger again making assumptions about the causes of and solutions for poverty and abortions again. Hand out more money to PP so they can hand out more pills, patches, shots, IUDs and more condoms, so folks can have more sex with multiple partners, so folks can have a false sense of security that they are having "safe sex", so PP can make more money treating sky-rocketing epidemic numbers of STDs and when the birth control fails (Guttmacher and the CDC say that in 52% of unplanned pregnancies women were using birth control), then hand out more money to PP to kill (or I should say terminate) more babies. Sounds like a plan... Hmm for PP to make billions more dollars.Posted by: Prolifer L at June 5, 2010 2:48 PM
I believe that you are the one who is ill-informed, and not open to the truth that Kelli speaks.
The field of embryology speaks in its texts of there being a new human being from the moment of conception. Human beings, because of the KIND of thing they are (human vs. dog or cat), ARE human persons, with all of their attendant dignity.
Even in the field of jurisprudence, the US Supreme Court has up held the fetal homicide laws of several states.
Thus, the law at state and federal level recognizes the fetus as a human being, with the right to life. Because it has the protection of the law under fetal homicide law, it is recognized as a separate human being, a person, with the most fundamental of all human rights: The right to life.
As Aristotle taught, a thing cannot simultaneously be and not be. Either it is, or it is not.
The US Supreme Court, in a typical act of insanity, recognizes the fetus as its own human being, thus permitting the state to charge a person with two separate murder charges should the pregnant woman be murdered, AND allows the mother as an expression of feminist willfulness the right to murder her child.
That's where we are.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 5, 2010 2:48 PM
There very good at taking things out of context. What I remind myself and have no problem with reminding them is that there side is o.k. with the unborn being killed in their mother's womb. There preoccupation with death also shows their lack of wisdom.
I have a question for you the next time your life is at risk or in danger what type of discussion should be had about your life? Be honest and try to feel the terror that the unborn babies feel the very minute the violence against them begins when minutes before they were safe in their mothers' womb.
robert berger:But making abortion illegal again in America won't stop them,but only make abortion more dangerous.
robert if abortions were made illegal again not many would seek getting one. the rate on back alley abortions was really really low b4 abortion was legalPosted by: chris at June 5, 2010 4:48 PM
little off topic but heres the pro choices people hero. Sanger was born in Corning, New York. Her mother, Anne Purcell Higgins, was a devout Catholic who went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) before dying of tuberculosis and cervical cancer. Sanger's father, Michael Hennessy Higgins, earned his living "chiseling angels and saints out of huge blocks of white marble or gray granite for tombstones," and was also an activist for women's suffrage and free public education. Sanger was the sixth of eleven children and spent much of her youth assisting in household chores and care of her younger siblings. said in life magazine her father was a socialist who taught her his political views. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Early_lifePosted by: chris at June 5, 2010 5:40 PM
Kathy Ireland has gone against the grain of the glitterati and spoken out against abortion.
"My entire life I was pro-choice — who was I to tell another woman what she could or couldn’t do with her body? But when I was 18, I became a Christian and I dove into the medical books, I dove into science," Ireland told Tarts while promoting her insightful new book "Real Solutions for Busy Mom: Your Guide to Success and Sanity."
"What I read was astounding and I learned that at the moment of conception a new life comes into being. The complete genetic blueprint is there, the DNA is determined, the blood type is determined, the sex is determined, the unique set of fingerprints that nobody has had or ever will have is already there. she read her husbands biology books thats how she learned life starts at conceptionPosted by: chris at June 5, 2010 7:34 PM
Gerard Nadal - Again, as I said to Keli, I'm not speaking about what a fetus *is* or *is not.* I'm talking about beliefs. I haven't mentioned once here my beliefs about what a fetus is (as far as I remember), so I'm not sure how you can say I'm ill-informed. I'm simply trying to keep the discussion about beliefs and word choice.
myrtle miller - I follow the scientific evidence which says a fetus cannot feel until the third trimester. I have not seen any evidence of "terror" by fetuses during an abortion. I hope that we can all recognize when we are projecting our thoughts and feelings onto the fetus. (Anybody seen the new MsFetus prochoice account? It's amusing, and a good example of this)Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 7:37 PM
for those who support abortion you know what eugenics is? sanger was a eugenistsPosted by: chris at June 5, 2010 7:43 PM
If people have beliefs that differ from the objective reality detailed by the field of Embryology, or the objective reality of Positive law in this country declaring the fetus to be a human person worthy of rights, then we need to address the semantic engineering in which they are engaging, in order to bring their mistaken beliefs into line with objective reality.Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 5, 2010 7:55 PM
Hopefully you will answer my first question. Science as I'm sure you are aware is sometimes wrong. If babies did not feel pain until the third trimester then preemies would not feel pain. This is my belief based on what I've read but I could be wrong. At week 20 according to data nerve cells are making complex connections and sensory perception with the brain and the entire body. At week 23 the nervous system is complete. I'm guessing even before then they would know when they are being killed but for sure by week 20 they are capable of feeling pain because the brain and nervous system are present.
At week 23 the pain would probable be more excruciating because the complete nervous system is present.
Great comments at 2:48 PM and 7:55 PM.
* * *
"Gerard Nadal - Again, as I said to Keli, I'm not speaking about what a fetus *is* or *is not.* I'm talking about beliefs. "
If I may ask, how do you define "beliefs" for sake of this discussion?
I don't understand. Why this fixation on beliefs? Don't you care about objective reality? I mean, who cares what people believe if they are wrong as evidenced by truth, facts, and reality?
I'm talking about beliefs. I haven't mentioned once here my beliefs about what a fetus is (as far as I remember), so I'm not sure how you can say I'm ill-informed. I'm simply trying to keep the discussion about beliefs and word choice.
Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 5, 2010 7:37 PM
Beliefs are critical to how we act. They form our decisions. However, beliefs must square with reality. When a person acts on beliefs ungrounded in reality, they'll have irrational speech and behavior. Someone can believe they can fly, but that won't hold them up when they jump from a bridge or a building. Beliefs re: intangibles can be disputed based on sound reasoning. But beliefs about tangible reality are much harder to dispute.
Regarding truth: if someone believes truth is relative, and not absolute, they're asserting a self-refuting belief. This is circular reasoning, and is a sign of irrationality. (It's true that truth is relative.
Beliefs grounded on irrefutable facts and valid reasoning are the only acceptable ones in a rational society. Any other framework is sheer madness, even if it's wrapped in semantics of compassion.
If you believe the child/embryo/fetus is a human being, but it's acceptable to compassionately kill the current existing child/embryo/fetus because it will either suffer or inflict damage in the future, either to an individual or many, then why is it not permissible for any one individual to kill any other for the same reason?
Shouldn't mothers be able to kill their children to either keep them from suffering, to defend themselves against being injured or killed, or to prevent others from being injured or killed?
Shouldn't the father be able to kill the murderous mother so as to not suffer the loss of his children?
We think individuals who consider and act on such beliefs as being insane.
Both may believe they are acting compassionately, however killing a current innocent human being to prevent future tragedy is always morally wrong. (That's a universal.) When we consider murder cases we look at motive/intent as well as all the evidence. The thinking (rationale) and the evidence must square with reality.
Scott Roeder firmly believed he was saving others from future harm by killing George Tiller. The pro-life community thinks Scott Roeder is/was insane. That's the only rational conclusion you can come to.
To think any other way would be to join Roeder in his madness. When an entire culture or nation goes down that path, the end result is horribly tragic. History is filled with such turns, and the pro-life community has no intent to join such company.Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 6, 2010 6:28 AM
(It's true that truth is relative.
Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 6, 2010 6:28 AM
That's not a true statement in my comment above. It's self-refuting. I drew an arrow with characters to point that out and it got gobbled up as HTML code!Posted by: Chris Arsenault at June 6, 2010 6:36 AM
"I haven't mentioned once here my beliefs about what a fetus is (as far as I remember."
KusheilsMoon, Do you believe the embryo/fetus/baby/child/unborn/product of conception is a human being?Posted by: Praxedes at June 6, 2010 7:35 AM
My point in talking about beliefs is to have a discussion on beliefs (beliefs, obviously, being what people think. Don't know why that needs to be defined). Yes, there is an absolute truth out there. That means that yes, some people's beliefs are incorrect. But I'm not here to discuss who is right and wrong or what the facts are.
Can't we discuss what people think without comparing it to the truth? Discussing that some people believe a fetus is a "clump of cells" and trying to understand WHY they think that isn't going to validate that belief, if that's what you're afraid of.
I don't think you can change people's beliefs without first understanding *why* they think that way. If someone believes the fetus is not alive, then you wont change their mind simply by telling them it is.
If someone uses the term baby when referring to a fetus and someone else uses the term parasite, it's okay to have a discussion about what those terms mean to those people and why they are used. I don't see why everyone is jumping off and trying to correct the "parasite" idea.
I do care about objective reality, and the facts. But that is a different discussion than what my original post was about, and what I thought this topic was about (word choice and language).
Posted by: KushielsMoon
at June 6, 2010 8:48 AM
Myrtle miller- You asked what type of discussion should be had about my life? I don't know. An open discussion without yelling, where everyone listens and tries to understand each other?
KushielsMoon would you say a unborn baby has dna at conceptionPosted by: chris at June 6, 2010 9:05 AM
KM, All that talking in circles and you still didn't answer my question.
Proaborts, yourself included, absolutely know that human life begins at conception. You just believe your life is more important and trumps the human life that your own actions brought forth.
No need to guard my speech.
This is the cold, hard truth.Posted by: Praxedes at June 6, 2010 9:46 AM
If your life were at risk or in immediate danger like it is for many of the pre-born all across our country which would you prefer open minded discussion are someone who feels enough passion to do whatever is legal to save your life? I believe there is a time to discuss and a time to act. I believe apathy is a decision and not one that I would embrace if my life were in danger.
"Can't we discuss what people think without comparing it to the truth? Discussing that some people believe a fetus is a "clump of cells" and trying to understand WHY they think that isn't going to validate that belief, if that's what you're afraid of."
Sure, we can talk opinions/beliefs all day, but what's the point? When you come to a pro-life blog you're talking to people who are beyond sharing opinions and ready to share facts. With all due respect, I think you are the one who is afraid. Not us. Afraid to challenge your own pro-choice beliefs because you may find out that yours don't add up the way you had hoped.
Have a good day.Posted by: Janet at June 6, 2010 12:53 PM
Sorry, I should clarify my point above. I shouldn't generalize and say pro-lifers are beyond sharing opinions because of course, that's what blogs are about! What I meant to say is that there is something beyond sharing opinions which is important too - sharing facts and hopefully coming up with logical conclusions about various issues that we might agree on. Finding common ground?
I hope that makes more sense.
It's an established and incontrovertable fact that countries where abortion is illegal have much higher rates of abortion than countries which permit it.
There are many well documented studies showing that whenever a country has made abortion illega, the number of abortions has increased greatly,as well as the numbers of women dying from illegal abortions. The documentation is ample;just look for it on the internet.
It's ridiculous to equate abortion with murder or rape,or other heinoius crimes. This is not an act of malice,but desperation. Yes,not all women who have abortions are poor, but a very substantial per cent of them are poor.
All the stories about Margaret Sanger being a racist who advocated genocide etc, are pure hooey. Her advocacy of abortion rights was based on her own tragic experiences in life,and observing the misery of the poor.
Sorry Sylvia,but all your statements about contraception and pornography etc show how totally out of touch with relity you are.
Yes- bringing large numbers of poor children into the world is extremely harmful to any society, and this does increase the amount of child abuse and neglect,not allowing abortion.
Contraceptives have prevented countless abortions;to call using them murder is not merely fatuous but insane.
Pornography may be distatsteful to many people, but it has been in existence since Greco-Roman times, and banning it is futile and does absolutely nothing to improve public morality.
Catholica and other social conservatives have totally unrealistic goals about human sexuality,marriage and the family.
They want a world in which no one has sex before or outside of marriage,not even adults who have never been married;no divorce,no abortion,no homosexuality,no use of contraceptives, no pornography,even tasteful erotica, etc.
This is a totally unrealistic goal. This kind of world has never exited and never will.
And any attempts by a government to force society into this unrealistic mold are doomed to failure and catastrophe.
The current Pope, the late Mother Theresa, and the late John Paul 11 are and were terribly misguided in their goals for the world,as well as the rest of the Catholic clergy and the Vatican.
I mean no disrepect to these individuals and the Catholic church or individual Catholics; but they are al totally out of touch with reality.
"There are many well documented studies showing that whenever a country has made abortion illega, the number of abortions has increased greatly,as well as the numbers of women dying from illegal abortions. The documentation is ample;just look for it on the internet."
How does one calculate reliable statistics on illegal activity? The aborting doctors and aborting women certainly aren't reporting themselves to surveyers.
I can't find the stats you are referring to on the internet. Perhaps you could help?
Praxedes - I must have missed your question. If it was about the humanity or personhood of a fetus, I am intentionally not answering those questions because (can I get a voice recorder for this?) I'm not talking about facts, but beliefs.
myrtle miller - I would want open discussion between passionate people who were capable of listening and understanding each other.
Janet- "Sure, we can talk opinions/beliefs all day, but what's the point? "
The point is to better understand people, both prochoice and antichoice, and to learn why they hold the beliefs they do. Why do they use the language they do. For instance, I would use the term baby to describe a fetus if that is what the woman wanted me to use (I am using the word to respect her beliefs). I think antichoicers often use the word baby to attempt to create an emotional connection to fetuses. Why we use certain words can help explain better our beliefs.
"When you come to a pro-life blog you're talking to people who are beyond sharing opinions and ready to share facts. "
I have no problem sharing facts (within the right context. Here I am not trying to speak facts). I don't understand why both discussions cannot happen. Aren't you interested in what people belief? Doesn't understanding a person help you communicate with them better?
I had a blog post, written on a prochoice blog, which was brought here. Now everyone is trying to talk about the facts, when I'm trying to gently remind everyone that my original post was about feelings and word choice and beliefs, not necessarily "the facts." Discussing the facts is very important, but is isn't the topic that was supposed to be covered.
Posted by: KushielsMoon
at June 6, 2010 7:48 PM
I'd like to thank you all again for remaining civil.
Same Scenario. Would you want them to talk for a long time or come to a sane solution quickly. I like being civil too.
I believe a child is a gift from God.
I believe in the age we live in women should have the sense to see through anyone who thinks she would profit emotionally or financially from killing her baby.
I believe if we're going to spend a lot of money as citizens we should get to decide where that money goes.
I believe sometimes good old fashioned common sense will save an individual a lot of heartache and common sense is still free.
I believe when babies are burned in their mothers womb they experience pain
Some of these are beliefs and facts some are just common sense and a little research.
"I have no problem sharing facts (within the right context. Here I am not trying to speak facts). I don't understand why both discussions cannot happen. Aren't you interested in what people belief? Doesn't understanding a person help you communicate with them better?"
Now, see, this is interesting. Because naturally people are interested in what other people believe. But there comes a point when, regardless of their reasons for arriving at the beliefs they had, you are able to say that somebody's beliefs are right or wrong. But I get the impression from your comments that you would rather nobody ever took that step. As long as everything is just about beliefs, you can stay comfortable with the conversation. As soon as someone points out that beliefs can be wrong, you start putting on the brakes.
I find that terribly interesting.
"I had a blog post, written on a prochoice blog, which was brought here."
No, actually you had a blog post, written on a pro-choice blog, which was quoted here and linked back. Nothing you wrote was stolen and appropriate attribution was made. When you write stuff, and put it up for general consumption, you can't complain when it is generally consumed. Or when it is critiqued. This post, on Jill's blog, is not that post, on the pro-choice blog.
"Now everyone is trying to talk about the facts, when I'm trying to gently remind everyone that my original post was about feelings and word choice and beliefs, not necessarily 'the facts.' Discussing the facts is very important, but is isn't the topic that was supposed to be covered."
Not on your blog, it wasn't the topic. This, as I mentioned earlier, is not your blog. See, you were saying you're worried about how the words you choose reflect on your arguments. And that you have to edit and self-censor to make sure you pick words that don't make what you're saying sound bad.
I, and pretty much all the other pro-lifers here, are commenting in response to Jill's question on whether or not we feel the same way. Do we worry about whether the words we choose are going to open a door for a pro-choicer? The answer has been a resounding, "We don't." Because our argument is based on facts. And, as long as you're remaining true to those facts, you don't have to worry about which words you pick to convey them. I don't need to fret about whether or not I say "baby" or "child" or "person" or "fetus." Because none of those words has a meaning that is going to negatively impact any pro-life argument I make.Posted by: Keli Hu at June 6, 2010 8:23 PM
Keli Hu @ 8:23,
I agree. Well said!
* * * *
"Can't we discuss what people think without comparing it to the truth? Discussing that some people believe a fetus is a "clump of cells" and trying to understand WHY they think that isn't going to validate that belief, if that's what you're afraid of."
Posted by: KushielsMoon at June 6, 2010 8:48 AM
Let's discuss this example then. How would our hypothetical discussion go? (Remember, we're talking beliefs, not facts.)
Me: We agree that some people believe a fetus is a clump of cells.
I agree that abortion is an act of desperation. An act of desperation that ends in the killing of an innocent child and the wounding of a desperate woman.
Perhaps we should HELP desperate women by offering them support and encouragement?? Perhaps we should offer them something that doesn't involve the taking of their own child's life?
How are YOU going to be part of the solution, Robert Berger? How do you help desperate women who don't want an abortion but don't have any support?
Women deserve better than abortion!!!Posted by: carla at June 7, 2010 6:20 AM
I back my contentions with links to the data sources which give rise them. Might I ask for the same regarding your " well-documented" contention that abortions are higher in countries where they are illegal?Posted by: Gerard Nadal at June 7, 2010 9:09 AM
"Might I ask for the same regarding your " well-documented" contention that abortions are higher in countries where they are illegal?"
Oh, please allow me, Gerard- Just Google it.
Now everyone can be a scholar!
"How are we 'believing the lies from the anti-choicers' by recognizing all reproductive experiences, and the emotions surrounding them, and believing that they are valid?"
Well, except post-abortive disorder. That's just a figment of your imaginations, you anti-choicers ;)
To answer the question, no. I am very consistent in my belief that life begins at conception, so I have no need for paranoia. On the rare occasion when I use the word, "it" (always from a lack of knowledge about gender), I feel poorly about the indignity displayed toward the baby but not paranoid about a pro-abort's response. If your point out my mistake, I am fine with confronting it and apologizing. I have only rarely seen such a reaction from a pro-abort when confronted with mistakes.Posted by: MaryRose at June 7, 2010 5:54 PM
I can't be paranoid when I realize that pr-aborts are nuts. Try standing in front of an abortion clinic in protest of abortion. The pro-death crowd really show their fangs. They are in fact the paranoid bunch of goons.Posted by: Heather at June 7, 2010 8:24 PM