Stanek weekend question: What are frustrating ways pro-lifers shut down dialogue?
Last weekend we focused on abortion proponents. This week we analyze ourselves. This weekend’s question comes again from good friend Josh Brahm, Director of Education and Public Relations, Right to Life of Central California:
What are the most frustrating or annoying things that pro-life people do that shuts down good dialogue? Stories are welcome.
[Photo, via Getty Images, is of pro-life activist Randall Terry interrupting a town hall meeting hosted by pro-abortion Democrat U.S. Rep. James Moran of Virginia in 2009]
May.25, 2013 7:14 am |
Apologetics |
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 biggest problem, as an ex-teacher of logic and debate, is that people have lost the art of objective debate. Most discussions fall into ad hominem nonsense and off the topic points. When Catholics learn how to think rationally, and debate, we shall win the arguments, which are true and therefore easy to defend rationally.
When we call women who have abortions ‘murderers’ :( I don’t believe that abortion is a clean cut issue; I believe that women who have abortions have been conned and it also doesn’t help that abortion is legal, making it very difficult to support the notion that they are murderers.
Marie, you make some excellent points and agree but why did you have to say “when Catholics learn….” Why not keep the discussion with prolifers? Non Catholics can be pro life too
Haven’t watched the telecast yet. Good point tho’. Inflammatory language from any group only advances the cause of the opposing side. It is so frustrating to see the “burn in hell” rhetoric and “murderers” applied to women coerced into abortion . I always try to defuse..but there is always a fringe element who refuse to give up their judgement.
I believe we sabatoge the debate, instead of winning it, is b/c we debate in a worldly anger & also speaking in harsh terms. We as protestants & catholics alike MUST stay united in this speaking the truth in love, remembering we r not fighting flesh & blood, but against the dark forces in the spiritual realm. These demons must b dealt with! Only then will we begin to reach hearts of the pro”choice” side. We must also keep our spiritual ears tuned in to what the Holy Spirit is saying to us. Bottom line: Be quick to listen and slow to become angry.
Hi, in answer to a query as to why I addressed Catholics, I must say two things. In my experience of working with pro-life groups, I have only worked with Catholics, so my experience is limited. Secondly, I have a right to highly criticize my brothers and sisters in the Holy Catholic Church, but not necessarily the thinking of those very good pro-lifers who are not Catholic.
Also, excellent comment on anger. As we are all sinners, anger indicates a flaw and introduces emotions into what should be arguments. There is such a thing as righteous anger, which is good, as more people should have righteous anger against the murder of babies in the womb; but that anger does not belong in the dialogue, but taken to prayer.
Marie , I understand what you are saying. I think prolifers and Catholics criticize too much and that turns people off in discussions. I think we need to test our chants with the bibles definition of love in the book of Corinthians, love is patient, kind, etc. after all Jesus taught us the greatest commandment is to love god and the sevens is like the first…… It seems negative chants, debates, attacks end all reasonable dialog as you pointed out.
“On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 22:40).
The Ten Commandments are stated negatively, but their summary by the Lord is stated positively. The Lord Jesus was constantly criticizing legalistic law-keeping, which He said denied the spirit of the law. He called the religious teachers of His time actors and sons of hell. His cousin John the Baptist called them snakes. But as the Son of God, the Lord Jesus was doing His Father’s business when He drove the money lenders out of the temple. However, I doubt that Randall Terry had the authority to break up (or, at least, “interrupt”) the town hall meeting.
I think we sabotage ourselves when we come at the issue from a Christian perspective only.We are then just brushed aside by anyone and everyone who is not Christian. In other words, get your religion off my ovaries. I am a Christian. And it forms what I do everyday. But if I were not a Christian, I would still be be vehemently prolife.
Dear Jon,
It’s a sin to use a photo of Randall Terry in that way. It is a sin to slander your brother and not love them.
And those other who are unaware of Jesus commands. How is it obeying God, or loving your neighbor to be silent in the face of evil? IT ISN’T!
Secondly, you all have authority and a duty and fail regularly. Jesus did not save you, so you could sit in your closet and pretend to be Christian and all you ever do is pray. That is the epitome of FAILURE. When you read, “18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen. -Matt. 28:18-19,” Jon do you get what that means?
Jon, and alll Christians have the authority and duty to uphold and do justice in the public square.
God’s first commands, bear much fruit and subdue the earth (Genesis), I guess pretending to be a Christian and pretending to teach people nothing worthwhile Josh Brahm and National Right to LIfe/Right to LIfe is a joke when it comes to Christians Ethics and Godly strategies. +4,000 BABIES ARE STILL BEING MURDER EVERY DAMN DAY, AND BETTER YET, PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS OPENING UP BIGGER STORES AND TEACHING 10 YR. OLDS TO MASTURBATE AND HAVE SEX.
Go on, appear to be reasonable, you don’t even have that.
I am not sure if these qualify but here they go: by being silent and not starting a dialogue in the first place and/or by not participating in a dialogue that has already begun and/or by not supporting tactics that work such as graphic displays.
It appears to me that prolifers don’t generally shut down this debate or dialogue; prolifers have a tough enough time trying to get a dialogue started on this subject. I believe every prolifer has a right to voice their opinion. Although we are called the “antis” we are the pro-side – so we want the conversation.
When we justify everything with our religion. I understand why we fall into this habit, and it is occasionally effective, depending on audience, but trying to debate with someone who doesn’t believe about the evils of abortion from a Christian perspective is often not only ineffective but pushes them further away.
To be clear, I’m talking about shutting down the conversation with statements like, “He formed us in the womb and so we cannot take that away from our children.” There are so many good arguments that integrate Christian values with modern science and technology that I find it frustrating when we ignore the fact that science is on our side!
I believe the religious arguments work for converting some people, so it all depends. When religion is on the side of the prolife position I see no reason to abandon it. I think non-religious people need to learn to be more tolerant.
Oh, Andrew brings up a good one:
When we waste time placing blame and judgment on others (prolifers and prochoicers alike) instead of showing them love. Love the sinner, and when you call them out, do so in a respectful and productive way. This is a child of God!
Many people who call themselves pro-life by appealing to Scripture hurt the cause by doing so cafeteria style. That is, I hear many Christians pick and choose savory parts of the Bible that condemn those filthy abortionists and homosexuals while ignoring unsavory parts that condemn fornication and divorce. The numbers suggest many who call themselves Christian practice sex before marriage and get divorced at rates matching the secular world.
Prolifers can shut down debate by being that ‘sounding gong’, when we forget to speak the truth in charity.
We do have the winning arguments. When fhese arguments are presented rationally and consistently AND charitably the cause of life will advance.
A few times I saw a self-described fundamentalist small group using a bullhorn to shout- really loudly shout- fire and brimstone scriptural passages to women and couples entering an abortion clinic. Those passages are real and have a place.
However, the message was deliivered at a fever pitch- so angry, and admitting no
conversation at all. No help or resources were offered. It seemed like women couldn’t get in the clinic door fast enough. :( Thanks be to God I have only seen that 2-3 times, and it’s been at least 15 years. Hopefully we are learning as a movement.
I remember watching a video not too long ago in front of a clinic where a guy spent 7 straight minutes screeching ‘Murderer! Babykiller! Murderer!’ at anyone entering or leaving the clinic. And people just rushed by him without a second glance and he didn’t really seem to be accomplishing much of anything. Ironically enough, some of the other people that I could see in the distance were actually managing to talk to and engage people. Not this guy, though. No one wanted to talk to him at all.
Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses Bible Verses.
Also, critiquing other peoples’ sex lives. Sex is not the point. Murder is.
Quoting Bible verses and interjecting yourself into someone else’s bedroom habits are two of the things right off the top of my head that I know FOR A FACT turn off the ears of Pro-Legal Abortionists INSTANTLY. I know this because THEY’VE TOLD ME.
I like having a few of the screaming zealots around – then I don’t have to! To me, they represent the background music and show that the prolife argument is not just a rational argument, but a fully human and emotional one. I appreciate them. Abortion is already examined clinically by most pro-choicers, people just don’t care anymore.
I think another way prolifers shut down the prolife argument is when they define “pro-life” so narrowly they exclude contraception, marriage, family life, religion and other topics from the prolife dialogue.
“I think another way prolifers shut down the prolife argument is when they define “pro-life” so narrowly they exclude contraception, marriage, family life, religion and other topics from the prolife dialogue.”
The term prolife has always been understood to be about abortion. People are free to support/oppose those other things as much as they want, but it is not fair to co-opt the term rolife. Why not come up with another term to reprezsent your views on those subjects?
xalisae I think you missed a verse:
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted[a] by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’[b]”
5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:
“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’[c]”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’[d]”
8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”
10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’[e]”
11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him” (Matt 4:1-11)
JDC, all of these topics are prolife and have traditionally been part of the prolife movement. It is those who seek to redefine prolife so narrowly that are co-opting the word. If you wish to abolish abortion only I suggest joining the AHA. They explicit state that is their only goal and acknowledge the difference between being an abolitionist and a prolifer. JDC, it sounds to me you might prefer being an abolitionist.
As I stated, there is a time and a place for use of the Bible as a persuasive argument. Against an atheist, not the time. It isn’t as though we can’t include Christian morals and values without quoting scripture. Catholics in particular, who do not believe in sola scriptura should understand this concept.
I should add that AHA’s definition of a prolife is not 100% accurate in that it states that prolifers only seek incremental change and not abolition. Prolifers do indeed seek abolition amongst other goals. Prolifer is a much broader category than abolition.
JDC, all of these topics are prolife and have traditionally been part of the prolife movement.
Because religious people owned the movement and controlled all dialogue. They also weren’t as successful, either. The Pro-Life movement isn’t owned by the religious anymore. The Movement belongs to everyone now, and we’re only getting more and more successful. Because it’s about ABORTION. PERIOD.
I see pro-lifers shutting down dialogue through failure to listen and using snark and sarcasm. Oh, and in-fighting too. The dialogue gets derailed by bickering with other pro-lifers that are “doing it wrong”.
I would just remind everyone that this is a public forum so some of these comments may not be genuine and some may not have the best interests of the prolife movement at heart.
Likewise, those that seek to redefine “prolife” likely have their own goals in mind, and obviously would have no problem if, for example, all religious talk was abandoned and no other issues were discussed. By changing what “prolife” means they accomplish two of their goals by limiting some of yours – the only two birds with one stone scenario.
For example, xalisae’s arguments would be more powerful if they weren’t so self-serving.
Oh puhleeze Tyler, we could do without your know-it-all, holier-than-thou and patronizing attitude. Your two posts above are a good example what Xalisae was talking about.
X
For lots of people, the movement is *not* only about abortion, even if I shout it in caps.
You can’t accuse other people of making the movement one way and then turn around and declare it to be the way you want. Just cuz you said so.
You do your work and I’ll do mine, and I’m glad you’re against abortion.
Ladybug, I am ok if xalisae wasn’t so absolutist in her anti-religious speech viewpoint. For example, some prolifers go to other prochoice Church’s in order to convert them to the prolife position. At these venues citing Biblical verses would probably not only be entirely relevant but, perhaps, also effective at getting these people to change their minds. So I don’t mind xalisae’s argument as long as she qualifies it a little and thereby be a bit more tolerant. Moreover, their are religious people all over the world and not just at Churches. Religious people unfortunately have abortions as well, so it might not be a bad idea to have people praying outside abortion mills.
Perhaps I should have said lapsed “religious people unfortunately have abortions as well.”
For example, some prolifers go to other prochoice Church’s in order to convert them to the prolife position.
And that is FINE! But I’m mostly talking about the venues that *I* discuss abortion, which honestly is everywhere I go. I do so at work, I do so wherever I have an online presence (facebook, twitter, and even the online games I play where young people frequent). The go-to for most of the Pro-Choicers I encounter is telling me that I cannot foist my religious beliefs upon them. It’s pain-staking to explain to them over and over and over again that they cannot just discount me out-of-hand as a religious person trying to impose my spirituality on them because I’m not even religious, and that’s not what the Pro-Life Movement is about anymore. And only AFTER that is out of the way (which sometimes it never really *is*, as I have been repeatedly called a “closet Catholic” by Pro-Legal Abortionists who refuse to even give an initial listen to what I have to say) that *real* dialogue about the actual issue can take place.
And trying to make it about sexual habits isn’t just bad because it limits the attention given to our cause by Pro-Legal Abortionists, but also because it limits the points we are able to make ourselves! What about children conceived in rape? You can’t tell rape victims they deserve everything they got for getting laid. -_-
There’s an admission from both sides that there is no room for debate – no middle ground – so it really doesn’t matter.
I mean seriously, can anybody come up with a middle ground here? Any pro-lifer want to raise their hand and say they can picture a solution they are okay with that allows abortion? A pro-choicer that will say they are fine with a world without any abortion option?
Debate is futile.
Alright. Call the game. It’s over.
I agree with Ex-RINO.
And now I just wonder which side of it all HE is on, being so godly and all. 9_9
And I wonder about you as well xalisae – but I don’t wonder much. Too many other important things in life to think about.
I think when a pro-lifer starts talking about religion and they assume that your Christian. Not only is that shutting down the discussion but its also kind of awkward…
I think religious and scientific information go hand-in-hand in the pro-life movement because it’s made up of religious and non-religious people. I believe that agreeing on that is one of the first things we pro-lifers need to do. Not say “religious arguments have no place” or “religious arguments are THE way”.
Biology and science point to what’s wrong with abortion. So does Christianity (and Jewish faith) so we have no need to separate the two. A healthy balance means using BOTH ways in presenting the pro-life message.
“And trying to make it about sexual habits isn’t just bad because it limits the attention given to our cause by Pro-Legal Abortionists, but also because it limits the points we are able to make ourselves! What about children conceived in rape? You can’t tell rape victims they deserve everything they got for getting laid.”
I have never heard any prolifer make that argument. Moreover, you can’t disconnect the connection between sexual habits which account for the majority of abortions committed and the abortions that occur. You have often pointed this out yourself – you use it to hold people accountable and responsible for their actions. It is part of your parental rights argument. So I don’t think there is a clear line there either – the prolife argument needs to be robust not delimited. We shouldn’t holster any of our arguments in my opinion, they all have their place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAbkuMclgGE
In-fighting over unrelated issues, like homosexuality or religion or economics, seems to be causing the most damage to the movement’s ability to relate to new people. I don’t think there is anything that can be done about it, though. People don’t want to triage and put anti-abortion efforts as more important than the other stuff, so these fights are going to happen over and over, until the minority opinion gets driven out or ends up shutting up.
In-fighting is a problem, but I think it can be overcome if we agree on the more robust version of the prolife position (my bias). The robust version is more inclusive, not less imo, even though it makes it difficult for new members and people of varying backgrounds to join. Ultimately, this robust version I see seeks to include as many people as possible with the common goal of ending abortion while acknowledging that some of these supporters may not share all of the goals of the prolife movement. Not everyone in the prolife movement is going to have the same political or policy opinions as much as we each individually would like them to. So I do concede that ending abortion is the shared (but not only) goal amongst the many various groups.
No, Tyler, in-fighting will not go away just because you insist on defining the label “pro-life” as anti-contraception, anti-any sex that isn’t between a husband and wife and procreative, etc. Just because you see it as consistent doesn’t mean that the vast majority of people agree with you or even see it as consistent.
Sincere or empty threats from people to leave or not to join the prolife movement if others don’t agree with them on unrelated topics.
Hey Tyler, I LOVE that Rabbit!
I don’t think in-fighting will go away either, but it can be overcome. I try to look at in-fighting as a strength and not a detriment. For example, I like it very much that you consider yourself prolife. I feel enriched and educated by the many comments and discussions we have had. I appreciate them very much – they have given me a new way of looking at abortion, the prolife movement, and the issues that concern you. Jack, your contribution has made the prolife movement stronger not weaker and me a better person for hearing them.
Me too Praxedes.
Like it or not, the majority in the pro-life movement do wear their religious beliefs on their sleeves, just as the abolitionists and the civil rights marchers did.
It would be helpful though to tone it down. Someone who is doing wrong loves the distraction to take their mind off the subject. We should concentrate on the baby at hand
I don’t think we should be trying to win an argument or have a better argument than those who are pro-choice. It’s not about winning a debate and it’s not about showing someone up. It’s about trying to save lives and build a culture of life.
We are not at war with people here, we are at war against a culture of death in which helpless, innocent lives are being destroyed. Those who have chosen or might choose abortions, and even abortion practitioners and pro-abortion (or pro-choice) leaders are people and should be treated with the dignity and value we give to preborn people.
“In-fighting over unrelated issues, like homosexuality or religion or economics, seems to be causing the most damage to the movement’s ability to relate to new people.”
Very well said, Jack. As many mentioned for the last weekend questions, pro-choicers (or pro-abortionists) often try to get us pro-lifers off-topic. But sometimes we do a pretty good job of going off-topic all on our own.
I am a Christian, and I believe Christianity is pro-life and Christians should be pro-life.
However, when I am discussing abortion with someone, I am not discussing Christianity, though I don’t shy away from it either. Nor am I discussing matters of human sexuality, from a Christian or any other viewpoint.
I can and have discussed abortion and seen people both of different religions and atheists become pro-life, or more pro-life, without quoting the Bible.
But it is always tempting to go off-topic. It’s a matter of remembering why we are doing what we are doing.
Use the strength that the Lord gives you to approach or be approached by a pro-abort. Use the knowledge that you’ve garnered through His graces, but also remember who you are talking to and the message that you are trying to convey. You must educate people with secular facts. Our culture is moving further away from the Father as we can plainly see. What is going to convince people? What is going to save these babies’ lives? Sadly we live in a time where the Word and His name are not nearly as respected as they should be. Speak persuasively and respectfully with His strength and love, but speak in terms that won’t be immediately dismissed as “religious blither”. Once you open the door to this, you can build relationships, and Lord-willing bring these people to Christ in the process.
The problem is intransigence and ils NOT answered by any PL on this board. Proper argumentation about science or any kind of truth becomes a dis-proof to someone deciding her life through a series of depressions/moods/emotions.
Over the last year, I have become friends with one of the sidewalk counselors in Indianapolis by offereing prayer support while she counsels. The biggest problem we face is one person who comes to the abortion mill often, posts pictures of aborted babies, and hollers at women going in that they are going to hell and the wages of sin are death. These women can’t get away from the anger and accusations fast enough, and they do it by “escaping” into the mill. My friend sits on the property line calling them sweetie and telling them she loves them and wants to help. Guess who is more successful?
Anger and pictures of aborted children have their place, but not at the door to the death chamber. It’s a rescue mission, not a threaten and blame game.
I think most prolifers would agree that prolifers generally need to know their audience and be aware of their location. Know the person, and setting – only then can you understand the story/plot so that you can show compassion to whomever your speaking. I think those are the general rules of engagement – perhaps others can elaborate on what they think the proper rules of engagement are.
great question. Lots of good answers. It’s important to speak from the heart
& NOT the ego. Pro aborts ALWAYS speak from the ego mind. Only an ego mind could possibly justify murderous violence towards a pre born child. The emotions, soul & heart must be shut down to attain the demonic goal of destroying a child. Abortion is an unnatural consequence of ego fear based thinking.
Two egos cannot ever agree or even understand each other, but the heart can reach another heart or soul.
I am going to say that I think it’s unhelpful to make our case from a purely religious perspective (unless that makes sense as in the scenarios Tyler mentioned or when it otherwise comes up organically), but I wouldn’t start there b/c we can make our case in a way that appeals to the secular as well (even if there is a broader understanding being missed, the case against abortion can easily be made without reference to religion).
Having said that, in regard to the infighting, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. If we accept that people who disagree on other issues are going to be working together on this one, then the secular people have to accept that that includes Christians. So when other topics come up, guess what, we’re not going to agree. Shocking I know. It’s not going to be Christians shut their mouths when the other topics come up so that no one takes their ball and goes home.
“Sincere or empty threats from people to leave or not to join the prolife movement if others don’t agree with them on unrelated topics.”
Basically this.
Actually I like Tyler’s answer – probably the thing that does the most to shut down dialogue is using one approach and not tailoring it to the audience/location.
Oh my goodness, no one’s stamping their feet and threatening to leave the movement. It’s just simple, basic, psychology that people like to join groups/movements where they feel comfortable. It’s just human nature. People don’t hear the anti-abortion arguments through the other noise. You can deny it if you wish, but I don’t want to hear whining when pro-lifers are portrayed as religious bigots in the media.
You won’t lose pro-lifers that already feel strongly about it, but it does make it more difficult to appeal to new people, especially since society is trending more secular by the year.
” It’s not going to be Christians shut their mouths when the other topics come up so that no one takes their ball and goes home.”
Implying that other topics just “come up” instead of being intentionally tied into the pro-life position by most major pro-life organizations, that’s just deliberately obtuse.
Andrew, you replied to me on May 25 at 10:39 am. I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. Certainly I disagree with some points you made:
You wrote, “It’s a sin to use a photo of Randall Terry in that way. It is a sin to slander your brother and not love them.”
I haven’t used a photo of Randall Terry. Jill Stanek has, and I merely quoted her use of the word “interrupt”. How is that slander? It’s my understanding that there is an order to town hall meetings, and people can’t just go and hijack them for their own ends. Christians are not anarchists, as Matthew 22:40 shows. Love is the fulfillment of the law.
You also quoted Matt. 28:19-20 and asked, “Jon do you get what that means?”
I think I do. It’s my understanding that the Lord Jesus was speaking to His apostles and to His Church. As one of His sheep, I don’t have the authority to teach and baptize, but the elders and missionaries in my church do. But the purpose of a town hall meeting is not evangelism.
You wrote, “Jon and all Christians have the authority and duty to uphold and do justice in the public square.”
What do you mean by the public square? If a forum is provided in the town hall meeting, that’s fine, but I shouldn’t break up a town hall meeting by disorderly conduct. That’s “shutting down dialogue.” Maybe Terry Randall wasn’t doing that, but Jill Stanek’s choice of the word interrupt gave me a different impression. We don’t fight evil with evil; we mustn’t become yahoos just because the other side is filled with yahoos. (Read Gulliver’s Travels for the origin of that term.)
Finally, while as a citizen I have a role to play, I don’t ultimately have the authority to enforce (“uphold”?) justice. At the federal level, that’s the department of Mr. Holder and his Department of [in]Justice. And I could digress here on my ever-strengthening belief in small government.
“Implying that other topics just “come up” instead of being intentionally tied into the pro-life position by most major pro-life organizations, that’s just deliberately obtuse.”
These topics do come up. The contraceptive issue comes up specifically b/c some pro-life people and organizations advocate pushing contraceptives as a way to reduce unplanned pregnancy. Same sex marriage and sexual morality come up b/c, though you don’t like it, those are issues that are important to many religious people (and some non-religious people too) and there is overlap in the people involved in the pro-life movement. There are probably religious organizations that explicitly tie them together under one big advocacy umbrella, but I think it’s unsupportable to say that most major pro-life organizations explicitly tie them together. I have not seen that kind of overlap – most pro-life organizations are devoted to that cause specifically. Now, if you mean that many leaders and supporters of major pro-life organizations are religious and also involved in other advocacy that’s probably true. But short of becoming single issue pro-lifers who pretend to be secular, I’m not sure what solution there is to that except for people to accept that the broad fight against abortion unites a lot of people who otherwise might have very little in common in terms of belief and who will certainly have very different ideas in terms of tactics and policy.
“It’s just simple, basic, psychology that people like to join groups/movements where they feel comfortable. It’s just human nature.”
But we established that it’s the belief itself that most people find intolerable or allegedly makes them feel so unwelcome. So….short of Christians pretending to be secular, there is no solution except to accept the disagreement.
“People don’t hear the anti-abortion arguments through the other noise. You can deny it if you wish, but I don’t want to hear whining when pro-lifers are portrayed as religious bigots in the media.”
I don’t deny it, but that’s a general anti-religion sentiment that pervades all discourse, not just the fight against abortion. If a religion has a perspective then to advocate for that perspective (even from a non-religious place using secular logic) will be “imposing” your religious belief. Try making a case for immigration reform from a standpoint of basic human dignity to a secular conservative. But on that issue, liberals constantly call on the church teaching. It’s all very selective and you’re never going to eliminate it. You have to just do your best to get through the noise, and on that point I’ve already said that I don’t think it’s usually helpful to make your pro-life case from a religious perspective and I typically don’t.
But you better believe you’ll hear objection to that kind of media portrayal b/c I certainly do not share your acceptance of its truth.
“I don’t deny it, but that’s a general anti-religion sentiment that pervades all discourse, not just the fight against abortion. If a religion has a perspective then to advocate for that perspective (even from a non-religious place using secular logic) will be “imposing” your religious belief. ”
This is why it’s almost impossible to get elected in this country without at least nominally belonging to a major religion, right (the “correct” major religions, at least)? General anti-religious sentiment in the US? That’s why appealing to religion is done by, idk, most political figures? Nah.
And no, it’s not just if a religion has a certain perspective, when you get the complaints about imposing religion. It is if the movement advocating for that perspective is dominated by a certain religion and most often shared in religious language, that’s when you get the most complaints. That’s the issue with the pro-life movement.
” But we established that it’s the belief itself that most people find intolerable or allegedly makes them feel so unwelcome. So….short of Christians pretending to be secular, there is no solution except to accept the disagreement.”
Yup, like I said, it’s impossible. Apparently, it’s completely necessary for most pro-life media sources to post something anti-gay or anti-atheist, or anti-liberal in general at least every couple of days. Otherwise, you’re totally pretending to be secular. ;)
Mission statements of pro-life organizations are heavy on the religion, and either implicitly or explicitly condone social conservative values besides pro-life. I have no idea what the point of denying this is.
But anyway, we obviously aren’t going to agree CT, and I see no point in a long thread arguing about it. Like I said in my first comment, I don’t see anything that can be done about it.
CT,
Every time I read your posts I am nodding. Spirit-led, baby!
I think we shut down conversation when we forget we are in a conversation with another human being and instead get wrapped up in delivering all our prepared points. If the other person feels like they could be exchanged for any other person standing idly nearby, that we’re not hearing them, then they aren’t likely to choose to hear us.
I’m in favor of an 11th commandment for pro-lifers, analogous to Ronald Reagan’s commandment for Republicans not to speak ill of each other (particularly in public).
Each person has his own style, and each person responds to a different style of message. Some people need the gentle persuasion, and others respond to hell-fire and brimstone. There is a need and a place for each kind of messenger. There really are people who are initially stopped from doing bad things by the threat of divine judgment, though other kinds of messages are often needed to get them to replace that with doing good.
The mainstream media has a good number of crazy whackos in it. Instead of worrying about what they say, pro-lifers would better serve their own cause by refusing to subscribe to lame-stream media outlets. Much of the old media is slowly dying off due to their extreme leftism and intolerance. Help the process along. Stop funding the forces which would marginalize you or persecute you.
Regarding the contraceptive issue….. it will take a good long time of continuous failure before people understand that birth control does not reduce unwanted pregnancy at the population level. It alters behavior extrinsically and the hormones alter behavior of both sexes physiologically too. Sooner or later, people will grow out of the knee jerk tendency to address their social problems with pharmacological substances.
I disagree that graphic abortion signs don’t work. They DO. I’ve actually had people stop and ask ” Is that really what it looks like?” I don’t shout things like they will burn in hell or anything but if my tax dollars are funding abortion I will fight it anyway I choose.
They try to shut it down often with the rape arguments …I tell them ” Well there are 5000 abortions a day in this country. Are you telling me they are all from rape?” ALSO I ???? them about multiple abortions as I’ve heard of a woman who had 11. This makes them stumble and bumble around as they try to find an answer. They can’t and usually the debate ends there. I always remember that you can try but many of these people do not want your 2 cents and they will continue to defend abortion.
Good topic. There are a few that I’d like to mention. As much as I hate to knife my own side, here it goes:
– Overdoing it on how abortion hurts women, or how women regret abortion. Yes, there are thousands of women that regret their abortions. And they need our help. But there are also thousands of women that will vehemently tell you that it was the best choice they ever made. Given similar circumstances, they would gladly do it again (and often do). And a woman regretting a certain choice isn’t a sufficient reason for banning it (otherwise we would have to make it illegal to place one’s child up for adoption as well). So this should not be our main argument. In general, making assumptions about post-abortive women is a very bad idea.
There are studies published in peer-reviewed journals showing links between abortion and various health problems (breast cancer, depression, infertility, future pregnancy complications/loss). However, there are also very prestigious studies that point away from these links (particularly the first two). At best, the data is inconclusive. But even if the data was there, it is not enough to show that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth. It must be shown that abortion is so dangerous for women that nobody should be allowed to have one. This is a herculean task for pro-lifers who live in any country that permits tobacco smoking, fast food consumption, motor vehicles, or military service. But we would oppose abortion just as strongly if it prevented breast cancer, filled every woman’s heart with joy, lowered the national deficit and found Amelia Earhart. That’s because there’s a much more elegant position we can all defend: abortion should be illegal because it unjustly takes the life of a human being.
– Overdoing it on the hostile endometrium hypothesis (or the “pill as baby-killer theory”, in more scientific terms). Recent studies have suggested that hormonal contraceptives don’t affect implantation, so it’s incorrect to equate them with surgical and RU-486 abortions. This both undermines the pro-life advocate’s credibility and creates a new front in the war that we probably don’t need to invest in.
– Ignoring or brushing aside fair questions that abortion proponents ask. For example, on the hard cases (rape, life of the mother), it’s very common for pro-lifers to point out that they represent a very small percentage of abortions or even claim that they never happen. A very small percentage of abortions still translates to thousands every year, so it’s essential that we answer these questions in a way that’s fair, coherent, and compatible with pro-life reasoning.
There’s a lot more that could be said, but those are the important ones that I think hinder successful dialogue. Hopefully there’s still a few pro-lifers left standing that I haven’t managed to offend, lol. :roll:
Mary Rose – thank you! That means a lot to me b/c I love the way you speak in your posts!
Navi – great comment. The hurt and regret that many women feel over their abortions is real and valid and important, but it is not THE reason to ban abortion, and I see no point in getting into an argument with someone over whether they actually DO regret their abortions, or insisting that every single woman to have an abortion will eventually regret it or die in denial, etc. It’s irrelevant to the legality of abortion. The harm that abortion does to women is a symptom of the actual reasons that abortion should be illegal: that it is the intentional and unnecessary killing of a human being. A specific woman’s feelings about her own abortion, while important, have no effect on the rightness or wrongness of abortion, because abortion is wrong no matter how we may “feel” about it.
Agreed on the other two points, as well. When I was pro-choice, “rape accounts for very few abortions” was not a very persuasive answer to my question. In fact, I relied heavily on this fallacious argument, because it was so easy to discount and brush away. I expected this answer, and pro-lifers often complied, and then I felt secure in the knowledge that pro-lifers HAD no real answers, just dismissals.
Navi,
While I agree that we shouldn’t *overdo* any of these things, I also hope you’re not saying we should ignore them; as you pointed out, these are real risks. Women should know about them and we now realize that we cannot depend on doctors and ‘healthcare providers’ to give us proper insight into these risks.
Again, I agree that ‘harping’ on the subjects of the pain and regret of HBC usage and abortion experiences can be deleterious to our cause. I just also think that not mentioning them at all can be incredibly foolish and damaging as well.
Thanks, Alexandra. I appreciate your insight and perspective.
MaryRose, I’m not saying that pro-lifers should never talk about the health risks of abortion. They can be very important (or even decisive), for example, when a sidewalk counsellor or a crisis pregnancy centre volunteer is talking to a woman considering abortion. Where applicable, it can also be part of informed consent legislation. My only point is that, if a pro-choice person asks you why they should be opposed to legalized abortion, it should not be the main part of your answer.
The graphic abortion signs work because I have to say very little. People freak out which means they are effective. Some women cry walking into the clinic as they view the baby Malachi sign. His poor little body torn to shreds. Think about what you are doing ladies. I was once told that pro choice people are okay with generic signs like ABORTION KILLS CHILDREN. They are? Well I’m not giving those spoiled brats their way. I also tell them about their breast cancer risks…some are receptive but not enough to keep them from walking into the death camp. Mixed reactions ….some actually LAUGH ! Some say F*** you and many say who cares. Some cry.
One of the most effective ways I have seen pro-lifers work together is simply through verbal support of each others initiatives and eachothers efforts.
• 40 days for life is set up in order to get other people involved, but are very clear about the boundaries of involvement. So alot of people who go about activism can know right away if their advocacy styles are similar.
• this website does the same thing, you know what your getting into, and the rules are clearly posted.
Then Human Life Internation, offers great resources as well, to enable street activists and amr them with handouts and fliers.
Even if you don’t need these outlets, you yourself can encourage those who do, or make connections which may be helpful to others, so just knowing your place and your strengths can make it happen for others.
THAT BEING SAID…
As a Catholic, one thing has totally frustrated me, and that is how the Roman Catholic Church has shut down pro-life dialog. I am grateful for this newest Pope because he looks like he is very pro-active and intent on outing the social Catholics. He hardballed Chris Matthews, a fake Catholic, in a very public interview, which his station decided not to air, because Bergolio so clearly bested their best anti-catholic interviewer. Which was priceless, google it, please! However the L.A. Diosese, for instance, refuses to allow the term: “Anti-Abortion” because they feel this is how the media paints them negatively. But by not allowing that term, they empower those who don’t want to address the negative impact abortion has on women and society, opening their ranks up to those who would be interested in silencing such dialog. They set the tone for cowardice and discouragement of those who want to witness the truth. Shame on the L.A. Dioscese, and I am sorry to say it, but SHAME on Bishop Alexander Salazar, Auxillary Bishop of L.A.. He stated clearly at last August’s charismatic renewal conference that a pregnant woman told him she was going to have an abortion for financial reasons, and he stated quite clearly, that he thought it was just. Luckily the conference is recorded and his apostasy can heard to this day on CD.
Another thing Catholic Church’s do, is allow Pastoral Associates full power over the laity, with only a handful of other office clerics perhaps administering above their authority. The priest is often too dependant on the pastoral associate, or at least, too close to them, to want to upset them by not prioritizing along the lines of their own personal stated agendas.
Many Catholic Church’s also do not want the 12 week old fetal models given away in their church’s, which is also a terrible shame, considering almost everyone I have ever given one of those too was shocked and amazed at the development level at that age.
Jake where is your logical argument? I’ve been a nurse for 26 years and I know plenty of anti abortion doctors and nurses. Abortion is murder. So you’ve just attacked Tyler without any imput. A favorite of anti lifers…diversion!!
CityOfAngels, that “interview” between the current Pope and Chris Matthews is a hoax. And can you document Bishop Salazar making that statement?
Back to the question this weekend. I’m a little late to reply.
What I’ve seen myself do to shut down dialogue is to choose a witty reply over a compassionate one. I could try a little more humility and a little less smarty pants.
I’ll probably last a week.
Shutting down dialogue?
Those that claim to have no faith mocking those that do.
“Agreed on the other two points, as well. When I was pro-choice, “rape accounts for very few abortions” was not a very persuasive answer to my question.”
Of course not. Especially when coupled with “all women who get abortions are coerced into it.” If that’s true, then how was the sex that led to the abortion NOT likely to have been rape?
Post abortive men and women who regret their abortions are allowed to find their voices. They speak to the lie that legal abortion is safe or that it helps or heals.
Are our stories the main argument? No. But there is a place for us to speak of our regret.
When it comes to prolife legislation being passed you have us to thank. We are either there to testify or have friend of the court briefs filed on our behalf.
Also who is better equipped to help others find healing than those that have been there?
I have walked this journey too damn long to shut up now. :)
While I don’t think quoting Bible verses to non-Christians is going to help much. But excluding all morality and religion is silly, because though science can tell you that this is a human being, only morality and religion can tell you why it is wrong to kill this human being, why a pregnant mother has the duty to care for her child like any other mother, etc.
…only morality and religion can tell you why it is wrong to kill this human being, why a pregnant mother has the duty to care for her child like any other mother, etc.
False.
Please explain, Xalisae.
Julia wrote, “…only morality and religion can tell you why it is wrong to kill this human being, why a pregnant mother has the duty to care for her child like any other mother, etc.”
Mostly true. But morality proceeds from religion.
“Especially when coupled with “all women who get abortions are coerced into it.””
Wow, that’s one of the biggest straw men I’ve ever seen. Seriously, what was the point of that?
Jesus told the Apostles some Demons can only be cast out by prayer and fasting. As noted on here, calm, respectful reasonable discussion, logical points showing the respectful unconditional Love of the God-Man is an absolute. Preceded by and followed by prayer and fasting.