Stanek weekend question: Does it matter what the public thinks of pro-lifers?
I mentioned yesterday I attended a pro-life meeting in FL. The organizer, Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life, asked several survey questions in advance. Here was one of many I found interesting. Respondents had to choose one answer:
1. It matter what the public thinks of us.
2. It doesn’t matter what they think of us but only what they think of abortion.
What would your response be?
Apr.02, 2011 1:36 am |
Weekend question |
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.
The two are so linked I’m nor sure the question is helpful.
I would rather people think poorly of me and respect the unborn than think well of me and have no regard for the life of the unborn. That said, in reality, if one thinks well of me they are more likely to listen to my views.
I don’t mind being disliked for telling the truth but I should be concerned if I am disliked for doing disrespectful and stupid things.
It matters that they dislike abortion. If you worry about what the public thinks of you, it will impede you from un-selling abortion.
We have plenty of “pro-lifers” who will not publicly give their views on the issue, and the vacuum caused by their worry of what people think of them, has served to restrict the access and the speech of the rest of us.
There are so many “pro-lifers” who remain silent, that it’s difficult for others of us to keep careers in health care.
To influence others positively, it helps to be “likable” first. That said, #2.
The question is too proscriptive and loses some sense by restricting the answer to one or the other.
I don’t see the answer as either one or the other. It may be one or the other or it may be both. People may think you are worth listening to or they may think you are a jerk. If they think everyone who opposes abortion is a jerk you are unlikely to have widespread influence.
Fortunately, I think, we have different personalities and different ways of influencing people. No.2 would be the common pro-life answer, but if No.1 is ignored we are in danger of losing the battle.
The bottom-line answer is of course #2.
However, it should be obvious to ALL that abortion is murder and never a good option. When that is not the case, that’s where the prolifers come in - to help educate, to help women/men heal post-abortion, and to pray that God will change hearts around the world.
Do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I pleased men I should not be the servant of Christ…. (Galations 1:10)
I think its #2. I have offended many by speaking out about abortion. Oh well. It doesn’t matter if they like me or don’t like me. It only matters that they see the truth of abortion.
There’s an assumption in the question there’s a difference between pro-lifers (as an activist/advocacy group) and the public.
To make a major change – that line must be removed. We need to be united.
I don’t think one has to be liked, as much as respected, when it comes to advocating benefits vs harms, that impact individuals and their culture.
Looks like it’s #2.
Just a guess here – but I’m thinking Fr. Pavone is looking at turning the dial up a bit more on the ugliness of abortion
America will be pro-life, history will be kind.
It does matter what the public thinks, but only because we have a media that constantly seeks to vilify us. The vast majority of big city newspapers are liberal, and that includes pro-abortion. Among the handful of more conservative big city newspapers, most of them are only conservative on economic issues and are either neutral or pro-abortion on the right to life issue.
Then we have the Catholic media, which you would think would be 100% pro-life, right? Don’t be ridiculous! The two largest Catholic newspapers are the National Catholic Register and the National Catholic Reporter. The Register is a legitimate Catholic publication, so it’s pro-life. The Reporter is a front for the Democratic Party, so it’s pro-abortion.
We know that every time any pro-life activist does something wrong, the media uses him to condemn the entire pro-life movement.
We also know that many pro-abortion activists like to ignore scientific fact about when human life begins. With facts being largely useless in dealing with these people, people so driven by passion and emotion who refuse to look reality in the eye and face it, the only way their opinion of abortion is going to change is if their opinion of pro-life activists changes.
So… while ultimately it doesn’t, or at least it shouldn’t matter what they think of us and only what they think of abortion, the two are tied together in such a way so that they cannot be separated.
I agree with those who’ve said that the two issues are inseparable. Once people hear the truth about abortion, they’re likely to see how wrong it is. But that only works if they’ll listen in the first place.
Public perception of pro-lifers matters in that we need to win hearts and minds. As voices for the voiceless, we of course don’t stray from basing decisions and public actions regarding abortion education on principle v. popularity (or whatever) because truth is the epicenter that shakes off lies and myths. But the vital message of life ambassadors has to be looked at in the context of how and if it’s being received in our striving for effectiveness.
John, I hear what you’re saying. That makes a lot of sense. I think the two answers are very much tied together.
Those who refuse to face the reality of abortion will use any excuse to do so. Every last person in the pro-life movement could be completely loving, non-violent, and well-spoken, and we’d still be called anti-woman extremists. And a vast portion of the population would be perfectly willing to believe such slander.
Put more succinctly: haters gonna hate.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20110402/LOCAL18/104020337/Charges-death-fetus-protested?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com
“It does matter what the public thinks, but only because we have a media that constantly seeks to vilify us.”
Geez. A movement seeking to abolish a constitutional right just can’t catch a break from the evil liberal media, huh?
Joan, dawling, no where in the Constitution do we see the right to abort a baby. We’ve been through this ad nauseum. READ THE CONSTITUTION!
From Eric Metaxas’ biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
On Sunday March 13, 1932 a national election was held to determine who would be president.
A month earlier the man, who would be elected president, had been found ineligible to run since he had been born and raised in a foreign country.
But this ‘problem’ was strenuously shoved thru a ‘loophole’, [like a camel thru the eye of a needle], and on January 30, 1933 a man who consorted with crazies and criminals and who loved to be seen carrying a dog whip in public, became the nation’s new chancellor.
Adolph Hitler was now ‘The Leader’ [Der Führer] and the Gernany’s ‘Third Reich’ had officially begun.
Hitler declared that his government would make Christianity “the basis of our collective morality.” This statement which was a lie instantly annulled itself. He ended with another appeal to the God he did not believe in, but whose Jewish and Christian followers he would thenceforward persecute and kill: “May God Almighty take our work into his grace, give true form to our will, bless our insight and endow us the trust of our Volk [countrymen].”
========================================
“The fearful danger of the present time is that above the cry for authority…we forget that man stands alone before the ultimate authority and anyone who lays violent hands on man here is infringing eternal laws and taking upon himself superhuman authority which eventually crush him.”
“The church [body of Christ] has only one altar, the altar of the Almighty…before which all creatures must kneel. Whoever seeks something other than this must keep away, he cannot join us in the house of God [assembly of the righteous (can light have fellowship with darkness?)]. The church [body of Christ] only has one pulpit, and from that pulpit, faith in God will be preached, and no other faith and no other will than the will of God, however well intentioned.”
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, 1933
As for whether it matters what the public thinks of us..
well, we already KNOW what they think of us. Yes it would be nice to be respected for our viewpoints but then, JESUS was not always liked or respected for HIS viewpoints, was He? Still we, like Jesus have a “job” to do….to get people to see the TRUTH.
Ya gotta do what ya gotta do. Jesus was kind and gentle when He needed to be, but firm in his message….He got His point across.
“Joan, dawling, no where in the Constitution do we see the right to abort a baby. We’ve been through this ad nauseum. READ THE CONSTITUTION!”
Oh, okay, I’ll let the Supreme Court of the United States know that they’ve been overruled by the Supreme Court of Sydney M. in a 1-0 decision.
Andrew, you just made my day.
joan says: April 2, 2011 at 12:27 pm
“Oh, okay, I’ll let the Supreme Court of the United States know that they’ve been overruled by the Supreme Court of Sydney M. in a 1-0 decision.”
=====================================================================
Joan of arcania,
It won’t be the first time a majority of justices of SCOTUS have been wrong.
In this instance Sydney is a majority of ‘ONE’ tho she is not alone in her conclusion.
But you o dark and deceived one care not one iota for truth and the TRUTH.
Keep listening for the ‘pop’.
You moment of liberation draweth nigheth untoeth youeth.
“Legion” abortion supporters – have such difficulty fundraising that their flagship abortion organization needs our money to survive. They’re a bunch of ticks, parasitizing our resources.
Have you seen the size of their rallies?
My theory is that most of those ticks have become so engorged, they can’t move, anymore.
Did Jesus worry about what the public thought of Him? Did the apostles worry about what the public thought of them? Of course not, they were all killed for being offensive. The pro life movement has worried all too much about how the public and politicians view them. That’s why we have done so little to stop the holocaust. The truth will either soften or harden a person’s heart. Our culture has thrown God out of almost every area of public life. Therefore, His truth is offensive to most.
It matters only that we glorify Christ with our actions. When we get that maybe we’ll be able to change the heart of the nation.
#2
I know it matters to a lot of prolifers because they’re afraid to stand outside a clinic and pray. Too many worry someone they know will see them and think they’re a crazed anti-abortionist.
How interesting CC you would say “We are legion”. You know who else said that? The demons that dwelled in swine and cowered before Christ.
And since I think the mindset of you and Joan and the other pro-baby dismemberment types among you are straight from hell… well how very chilling you call your ranks “legion”.
“other pro-baby dismemberment types among you are straight from hell… well how very chilling you call your ranks “legion”
I was being snarky. Your response, with its religious theme, just underscores my point about how you’re perceived as irrational Christian religious zealots. Thanks for proving my point!
It matters only that we glorify Christ with our actions. When we get that maybe we’ll be able to change the heart of the nation.
A religiously diverse nation which isn’t universally committed to “Christ” and among those who are, not all are anti-abortion. (But as you folks say, they’re following Satan). I know, hard to believe…Remind me how many American Jews are pro-life?
Again, thanks for proving my point about the zealotry.
CC, I don’t care if I’m “perceived” as a religious zealot. I’m proud of it. I love Christ because He first loved me! He loves you too CC.
The pro-life stance is supported by religion but it is not a religious stance. It is supported by science, by common sense etc.. Anyone with a functioning mind and conscience will eventually come to the pro-life position.
Praying for you, CC. I really mean it. Why do you choose to be full of hate when you can be filled with love?
Wow, CC. I guess all the non-Christian pro-lifers I’ve met are just faking?
Half of Americans are pro-life. It’s statistically impossible for the movement to be made up entirely of Catholic zealots. In fact, ALL Catholics, ”zealots” or not, make up less than a quarter of the U.S. population.
If you’re interested, here’s a video that covers just a few of the many, many secular reasons to oppose selective denial of the right to life on the basis of age.
Nope. I tell everyone I’m pro-life. Nobody has ever said anything mean to my face about it. Not everyone in the world is going to like you anyway, but your real friends won’t care if you express your true feelings.
Being pro-life is a belief!! There is no reason to fear us. I have a few liberal friends and they can crack me up! They aren’t scared of me because I’m PL. We as people all have a lot in common. We all have hearts that break. We all laugh. We all cry. We all have a need to be loved. We all have problems. I guarantee if you put the abortion issue aside for a minute, we would all get along or find something unique about each other. It’s ashame we have to be so divided on this issue to the point that it gets ugly.
Joan, here’s a thought experiment for you.
Consider that a secretly racist Republican won the GOP Primary for President. That shouldn’t be too hard for you to imagine, right? And in the Presidential Election, the Democrats were unpopular that year, so the secretly racist Republican gets elected president along with GOP majorities in both Houses of Congress – kind of like the opposite of the 2008 presidential election. During his presidency, five out of the nine Supreme Court Justices die or retire, so he has to replace those five.
So the secretly racist Republican president nominates five secretly racist people for the Supreme Court. The GOP controlled Senate, suspecting nothing, votes to confirm all five of the secretly racist people for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now controlled by racists.
A racial discrimination lawsuit arrives at the Supreme Court, and the five racists decide to use the opportunity to reinstate segregation, declare that non-whites are second class citizens, and banish non-whites to slums. There is absolutely no logic or Constitutional basis to the five racists’ decision – they simply ruled based on their own personal prejudices.
If this were to happen, what would you do? Throw up your hands and say, “Oh well, the Supreme Court has ruled that racial integration is unconstitutional!”? Or would you think maybe, just maybe, that something is rotten in the state of Denmark?
In case you don’t catch my drift, I’m saying that Roe v. Wade has no basis in the Constitution. I’m saying that the Justices who ruled in its favor based the decision on their own personal beliefs rather than upon the law. And I’m saying that the same thing could happen with any issue, as long as we continue to allow the Supreme Court to be dominated by ideology rather than by strict interpretation of the Constitution and the law.
If we want to change the law of the land, we need to be concerned about what society thinks of us. Only when we change enough hearts, for a long enough period of time, will we be abe to change the laws and make them pro-life again. How people view us will determine whether they are willing to listen to our point of view or not.
The pro-aborts know this, which is why they are so desperate to slander our reputations at every opportunity. This is why they tell their people not to talk to pro-lifers, and to end any friendship they have if they discover that person has pro-life views. This is why they try so hard to silence pro-life views and shut down debate. If people learned that pro-lifers rarely fit the stereotype that hard core pro-aborts portray them as, they might listen to what pro-lifers have to say. Most pro-aborts are keenly aware that in a democratic society, that could eventually spell the end of Roe v Wade. So yes, from that perspective, it does matter what the public thinks of us.
But if society is so far gone that you’re not going to chage their view anyway, then you have to be willing to be unpopular for what you believe, and maybe be persecuted for it.
Being pro-life is not a popularity contest for individuals, but it is important how the public perceives us as a whole. With the liberally biased media, this wll always be difficult to do. Being pro-life is a great responsibility – much is expected of us. The whole world is watching, so take great care in everything you do.
I guess what they feel about abortion is marginally more important. That said, I believe that if we can show how much we do love the mothers as well as the babies, we will be more successful in converting people to the pro-life side.
The lie that pro lifers hate women must be fought with our love and services to support them as mothers and provide help if they generously choose adoption for their child.
Regarding Roe v Wade..many pro-choice advocates and legal scholars believe it was a bad decision.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/honest-pro-choicers-admit-roe-v-wade-was-horrible-decision
They still believe abortion should be legal, just that it should be legalized by the states through the legislative process.
Take some time to do a search on “pro-life” on Twitter and read many of the comments from pro-abortion people. What they think about pro-life people **IS** what they think of abortion. Anything the pro-life movement does that makes us seem extreme, out of touch, hypocritical, etc. is perceived by pro-“choice” people as a reason to keep supporting legalized abortion. Our reputation matters, we should guard and protect it and not allow ourselves to do things that make us be perceived a kooks.
the answer is 2. If we care more about what people think of us then doing God’s calling in our lives, we are doing something wrong.
Hoping people have a good opinion of me is prideful. What people think of me is none of my business. What God thinks of me – well, that’s a whole ‘nuther issue! Would rather God is pleased with me than man.
It is more important that people know we are against abortion then on a personal level.
“Too many worry someone they know will see them and think they’re a crazed anti-abortionist.” – couldn’t have said it better myself!
I am already considered a kook for praying to end abortion with 40 Days For Life.
No Sunday funnies this week? :-(
Having to choose one response, I choose #1.
St Paul reminds us that the credibility of the message is tied to the credibility of the messenger. They will see the pro-life message more clearly if they don’t have a cloud of misperception (or tragically accurate perception) through which they need to look to see the message.
CC,
Religious zealots?? Coming from a foaming-at-the-mouth proabort who offed her own child and drove her niece/nephew to be offed, who shows up here regularly and proudly advances the slaughter of innocents…
Projection??
Yes, our credibility is tied to the message – however, if we are acting in accordance with pleasing God, then we will be acting in a proper manner.
There are so many who dislike me because I carry my sign “I Regret My Abortion” – it does not matter how I behave (I do try to behave well) – so, should I back down, Dr. Nadal, from carrying that so that the public views me in a way in which they like?
Steven Ertelt: Anything the pro-life movement does that makes us seem extreme, out of touch, hypocritical, etc. is perceived by pro-”choice” people as a reason to keep supporting legalized abortion. Our reputation matters, we should guard and protect it and not allow ourselves to do things that make us be perceived a kooks.
Well said. There is a wide range of pro-lifers, just as there is among pro-choicers, but I do think that to some extent “one bad apple” can ruin the whole barrel, so to speak. Currently, I don’t see any real “kooks” among the pro-lifers posting here regularly, but there have been some in the past, such as with a true anti-woman bias.
____
Lee Anne: There are so many who dislike me because I carry my sign “I Regret My Abortion”
I wonder why this is. How can one argue with this? It’s how you feel, and I see no reason to dislike you for expressing that feeling. You’re not projecting anything onto the opposition, and you’re not invoking stuff that can’t be proven to be real.
Hi Lee Anne,
Right there with you sister. When I hold my I Regret My Abortion sign prolifers thank me, hug me and say, “God bless you!!”
Proaborts have flipped me off, yelled and screamed and thrown out a few swear words.
One woman yelled, “Well, you shouldn’t have had one then!!” (Um. WHAT??)
Doug,
I think I know why. Women that have had an abortion that they don’t regret feel very threatened by those that do. They don’t like it. Even though I am not saying anything about THEIR abortions am I?? :)
I am not saying anything about THEIR abortions am I?
Exactly, Carla, and thus I’m thinking they are making more of it than is necessarily there. Now, “more” may be what some pro-lifers think is called for, and I’m not saying that such individual testimony is the only course that pro-lifers should pursue, but personally I think it’s the most compelling thing.
Lee Anne,
If you have read this blog, then you should know that I hold the post-abortive mothers in the highest regard, so I’m not assuming a defensive posture regarding your question, which I refuse to dignify with an answer.
I simply reiterate that it DOES matter what the public thinks of us. The pro-life movement has been scarred by murderers such as Scott Roeder. It has been scarred by people who bomb abortion centers. It has been scarred by people who have been less than charitable with post-abortive women voicing their regrets. It has been scarred by hate-filled people using babies as a socially acceptable conduit to channel their hatred.
When the FBI met with me about the death threats I received from Ted Shulman, they admitted that it was an unusual reversal, as usually the death threats and violence come from those on our side of the fence.
That’s quite a statement.
Yes, it matters what people think of us. That forces us to keep our act clean.
Dr. Nadal – I did not mean to put you on the defensive – and I am sorry that you took my question as one that should not be dignified with an answer. It was a question that I think begs an answer. Should we, who are post abortive women (and men), not hold our signs? Does it make us look like zealots for life, and thereby kooks?
Is it more important for the public to think better of me by not holding a sign rather than holding my testimonial? It may be – It may be that in the fight for life, my sign is not important. Indeed, I know that I in the big scheme of things am not important – God is.
Doug – beats me…I, like Carla, frequently get slammed for holding my sign. I even had a very elderly woman, put her fingers in her ears, wave them back and forth and stick out her tongue as she was driven by in a car. That was an interesting one!
On the other side of the coin, I dislike people who I do not know coming up to me and hugging me simply because I am public about having had an abortion.
I would be dishonest if I did not write that I do wish for people to think well of me – but truly, it is not my business. I cannot help why people think what they think.
If I am behaving according to God’s standards, standing, holding my sign, praying in front of an abortuary, I am labeled as a kook … and that is what I am asking you to address, Dr. Nadal – do you think it would be best if we did not?
Doug – beats me…I, like Carla, frequently get slammed for holding my sign. I even had a very elderly woman, put her fingers in her ears, wave them back and forth and stick out her tongue as she was driven by in a car. That was an interesting one!
On the other side of the coin, I dislike people who I do not know coming up to me and hugging me simply because I am public about having had an abortion.
Lee Anne, that’s funny about the elderly woman – I guess she really hasn’t thought about the abortion debate all that much then. And maybe she better think a little more about keeping at least one hand on the steering wheel, eh? (Unless she has one heck of a big hand.) : P
I imagine the people hugging you are glad to have somebody else “on their team,” if nothing else.
I’m pro-choice and not religious, but you’re a very honest poster, and I really appreciate that. The abortion debate, in my opinion, is a good one as it leads us into the unprovable assumptions we all make, and to related questions like this thread – interesting stuff.
Doug – fortunately, the woman was in the passenger’s seat. (- :
I think people may think I “need” a hug because I had an abortion. I often speak publicly with Silent No More Awareness and perhaps people feel the need to comfort me. It is very strange, though. I am not on anyone’s team, but that may be another think on that.
I am sad that the issue of abortion even has to be a debate, Doug. To me, it is an open and shut case. A baby is deemed to be an inconvenience, a “problem” (there is the open) and the shut is; abortion kills that baby – case closed.
Lee Anne,
Yes, hold your sign. It is the rebuke of evil with the truth. Few, very few think you are a kook. Snots like CC will ridicule you out loud, but in the silence of the night, without an audience, conscience grabs hold and torments. People admire the courage of those who have been there and who speak from personal experience. The message of “I regret my abortion” is one of the most profound and effective out there.
The credibility of our message is tied to the credibility of the messenger. One Lee Anne or one Carla has more power to move than a hundred pro-life biologists with blogs.
Keep at it. Someday in Heaven you’ll meet the babies you saved, and it will be revealed to you how you changed the course of human history through your honest and humble witness.
While it matters what they think of pro lifers, it isn’t really worth the effort to change their minds. Rapidly diminishing returns on the investment of effort. Besides, what would you do to change them? I mean pro lifers are already well behaved anyway. And the one-in-a-million psychos are already disavowed and rejected. What could you improve?
However, it matters far more what they think of abortion and the returns compound rather than diminish. This is why the pro aborts fight discussion of the real nuts and bolts of ripping off the little arms and legs of babies in the womb. That is way more powerful than a discussion of the hair/clothes/life styles of pro lifers.
Also, I would add that it matters what the public thinks of pro aborts. Telling the truth of their activities turns the public against abortion and its proponents. So, that is a two for one return.
I am sad that the issue of abortion even has to be a debate, Doug. To me, it is an open and shut case. A baby is deemed to be an inconvenience, a “problem” (there is the open) and the shut is; abortion kills that baby – case closed.
I hear you, Lee Anne. Other people feel that taking away the freedom that women currently have here is a bad thing, case closed.
We all make unprovable assumptions. You and I have some that are not the same, but going with the ones I think we hold in common – we’re individual consciousnesses “here on planet Earth,” etc., I’d say you’ll be happier continuing to hold the signs. Viewing it from a pro-life angle, I don’t see where you’d be better served by not doing that.
“Someday in Heaven you’ll meet the babies you saved” – didn’t John Lennon have an album called Double Fantasy?
I think they are totally tied in to each other. They both matter. It is ridiculous to choose one.
It almost implies as long as you show abortion is wrong it does not matter how you do it or the opposite…don’t say anything so people don’t think badly of you. We must always speak the truth of abortion but it does matter how we do it.
You cannot change hearts if people will not listen to you.
Are you talking about preborn females Doug that have no freedom?? “CHOICE” kills those without one.
Just to clarify I do not stand because someone hugs me. I do not stand because I get flipped off. I don’t hold my Abortion Regret sign for any reason other than to stand as a silent witness in the face of the lie that abortion somehow “helps” women. I refute that lie with the truth that abortion killed my daughter and hurt me.
Pro-lifers are so used to arguing an issue that has a clear right and wrong side and that stance seems to have spilled over into answering the weekend question – a question which has no right or wrong answer because it can be approached and thought of in different ways as evidenced by the many thoughtful replies. Some questions are just springboards for discussions that can led us to greater understanding of our service in this world. At least that’s my2cents.
Are you talking about preborn females Doug that have no freedom?? “CHOICE” kills those without one.
Carla, I was talking about the pregnant woman. To a point in gestation, there isn’t any will, any mental awareness, no conception or desire for anything on the part of the unborn. Had my mom had an abortion, I would not be here, and while there would have been a “living human organism” there, there would not have been a “me” to know or care about anything at all.
Pregnancies don’t go all the way through all the time, and whether it’s due to miscarriage or the willful choice of abortion, that does not make the world “a bad place” for me. I think it’s much, much sadder for there to be a miscarriage when the woman or couple really wants to have kid, versus when 100 unwanted pregnancies end by abortion or miscarriage.
Doug,
A female in utero just might be able to grow up to be a pregnant woman(MOM!)if she isn’t killed in an abortion.
Been here, done this with you, Doug. For what? 3 1/2 years now??
Good grief.
A female in utero just might be able to grow up to be a pregnant woman(MOM!)if she isn’t killed in an abortion.
Sure, Carla, no argument about that.
Doug – I am sure you have thought the issue of women’s right to chose to abort her baby many times. My freedom, ends, though, when it infringes upon another person’s right to life. For instance, if I decided you were an inconvenience and I was stronger than you … or not (!) … and had you dismembered, I would be breaking the law,
However, when it comes to abortion, a woman’s right over her child’s body (not her own) seems to trump.
I continue to hold my sign – and I thank Dr. Nadal for his input.
Bottom line – we must always behave in a manner pleasing to God – whether one is religious or not, that is a given. Society has certain rules to play by – and sadly, there is a huge fracture in the ruling of Roe v Wade, in which it disregarded the rights to life of an innocent human being.
When one is “speaking the truth in love” (Eph 4:15) you are automatically doing both #1 and #2 at the same time. Both are important for the all many good reasons pointed out by others.
Speaking the truth in a rude or otherwise scandalous manner not only undermines every prolifer’s credibility it distracts from the truth itself. So yeah, #1 matters.
The good news is we prolifers are doing as good a job at being loving in the delivery of our message as ever has been done by any social movement of our size. Jill’s blog is a great example.
Doug – I am sure you have thought the issue of women’s right to chose to abort her baby many times. My freedom, ends, though, when it infringes upon another person’s right to life. For instance, if I decided you were an inconvenience and I was stronger than you … or not (!) … and had you dismembered, I would be breaking the law,
However, when it comes to abortion, a woman’s right over her child’s body (not her own) seems to trump.
Lee Anne – yes, and even without considering our feelings about the unborn, there is a great difference – that the woman has the other body inside her.
____
Bottom line – we must always behave in a manner pleasing to God – whether one is religious or not, that is a given. Society has certain rules to play by – and sadly, there is a huge fracture in the ruling of Roe v Wade, in which it disregarded the rights to life of an innocent human being.
No, it’s not a given in any way. It’s a matter of unprovable belief. Just as the Supreme Court came around to holding slavery unconstitutional, so did it hold that the state laws forbidding abortion were wrong in that they were too restrictive.
In looking at societal rules, do you know of any society, anywhere, at any time, that has said that full rights and personhood were there in the unborn? I don’t and I don’t think there has ever been such a society.
Tommy R: Speaking the truth in a rude or otherwise scandalous manner not only undermines every prolifer’s credibility it distracts from the truth itself. So yeah, #1 matters.
Tommy, I don’t see it as necessarily undermining every pro-lifer’s credibility. You’re going to have some people that are “out there,” no matter what, and that’s certainly true for us pro-choicers as well.
I do like seeing some introspective threads here, for pro-lifers, though.
Actually, Doug, the Supreme Court said it could not rule when life began. It was that opinion that permitted the unleashing of the worst period in United States history for the unborn in particular and society in general. Wiith science being able to determine that a heartbeat in an embryo starts close to 21 days, we do know that at least at 21 days, there is a heartbeat, and a separate human being.
It does matter that the baby is within the woman’s body – definitely – and as such, she has ‘ownership’ of it – just like the slave owners owned the slaves. You wrote and I agree, the Supreme Court did hold that people cannot own other people – and yet, you forget that when it comes to the unborn.
You are sparring with your words, Doug – whether government have ever given full rights to the unborn or not is a moot point. The unborn are separate human beings and they are alive.
Lee Anne, agreed that life is there at conception. It’s not the argument. Heartbeat? What does that have to do with anything? It’s already agreed that a living human organism, a living human being, is there at conception. I don’t see people saying that “abortion is okay because there is no heartbeat,” do you? Hey – it could be, but I haven’t seen it.
When slavery was legal the slaves were not considered as full legal human beings. I am not saying that it is impossible that the unborn will ever be considered as such, but that is not the way it is now, and to my knowledge it has never been that way in any society, anywhere on earth, at any time.
Truly, I’m not just trying to “spar with words.” You say the unborn are separate human beings and alive, and I agree 100%. There is a difference, however – they are inside the body of a person, and they have not been attributed full personhood and rights.
“-they are inside the body of a person, and they have not been attributed full personhood and rights”.
And what has that to do with anything Doug? A baby does not have voting rights – a teen cannot get his driver’s license until they are of a certain age and can demonstrate their ability to drive – an elderly person gets their driver’s license away because they are no longer capable of driving – so – what does the fact that there is a living human being inside of its mother have to do with its “rights and full personhood?”
We all start out in our mother’s womb – fact. Another fact – it is wrong to kill.
Now, I leave you to your comeback, but I will not be sparring anymore on points that do not make a difference Doug. Insanity is doing the same … well, you know the rest of it … God bless you Doug.
“There is a difference, however – they are inside the body of a person, and they have not been attributed full personhood and rights”.
And what has that to do with anything Doug?
Well, Lee Anne, what you want is for them to have rights and personhood attributed. If they were not inside the body of a person, it would not be at issue, i.e. it makes a huge amount of difference.