Well, since you say “most” and “some,” and you assert it pretty confidently, that’s good enough for me. The more I read this thread, the more I realize what narrow-minded jerks most and some of these pro-lifers are. I hate them now.
Wow! I am irate now! I would not be surprised if some of them strangle puppies, and most of them cheat on their taxes some of the time, and a few of them fart in crowded elevators every single chance they get. Yes, indeed, I hate them.
“Never” and “always,” again strongly asserted. And he’s sure! What more proof do you people need?
I’m not trying to prove anything. We know these groups actively engage in political action to outlaw abortion. They oppose effective contraception education. They don’t lobby on behalf of a stronger social net so that single and poor pregnant women have an economical alternative abortion. They aren’t out there offering to adopt all the babies that nobody wants.
So really, why assume that “end abortion” means anything to them besides their stated goal to criminalize it?
Okay, so let’s take a look specifically at this group:
40 days for life:
Basically what they do is demonstrate in front of clinics, go door to door, circulate petitions telling everybody that abortion is bad. They claim success when a clinic closes. So basically it seems they are basically trying to end abortion by eliminating access to it, and convincing people not to get them. As far as how to prevent pregnancy, or what actually happens to the people who they browbeat into continuing their pregnancies, not a single word. The consequences of unwanted pregnancy is someone elses’s problem; they’re mainly focused on making sure the consequences happen.
There is a certain amount of truth in this, from any perspecti8ve. (From a devout believer, of course, there’s a lot of truth in it.)
Take it as a GQ question: Not 'What actually happens when a Catholic priest prays over the bread and wine?" but “What do Catholic believe happens when…?” From the viewpoint of the pray-ers, their prayers are going to be effective – one way or another.
From the viewpoint of an “end the war” protestor, it doesn’t matter a whole lot how the war gets over, only that it does. Pulling out and letting one’s opponenst consider that they’ve won, or a quick, decisive, low- or no-fatality win: it doesn’t matter. What’s important to the protestor is that we stop shipping boys over there to be killed.
From the viewpoint of the anti-abortion protestors, “abortion is murder” … the premeditated taking of an innocent human life, albeit one that cannot yet survive on its own. I am not here arguing that they are right – only that that is what they sincerely believe. Therefore, whether there are no more unwanted pregnancies, whether the pregnant women decide to carry their fetuses to term, or whether abortion is made illegal (and illegal abortions halted), is a moot point – what they want is for abortions to be stopped.
And because they believe in a God who answers prayer, whether He chooses to do it by motivating women to be chaste outside marriage and avoid sex within it if they don’t want a kid, or by motivating pregnant women to carry their babies to term, or by motivating legislators, courts, the police, etc., to keep abortions from happening, is immaterial – the goal is to stop abortions.
Probably their intent is a mixture of all three: if you’re a girl contemplating sex, realizing you might someday end up crossing their picket line, and being humiliated while doing so, to get an abortion, would be a deterrent. The effect of holding up to public obloquy the doctors who perform abortions and the women who come to them for one, is intended to cause a change of heart and mind abou abortion – if not for their motivations of caring about the unborn, then for the public ridicule. And it keeps the issue before the public, who chooses legislators and judges, as well as those who make police policy. Get enough of the public anti-abortion, they think, and the law will be changed – by constitutional amendment, if in no other way. (And it might be possible to get the Roe v Wade precedent reversed…)
As noted above, I’m not arguing their case; I’m trying to explicate it, the thinking and motivations underlying it. I suspect the majority of them are rational enough to recognize that the only result they have a strong likelihood of achieving is making abortion illegal. But to a certain extent, in their view it’s up to God HOW He accomplishes it, so long as He does.
And you know all this how, exactly? Again, you’re the one asserting what pro-life advocates “always” and “never” do.
You keep saying this, but not actually supporting it. You’re begging the question: “You ask why I would believe these people have anything other than a goal to outlaw abortions? What else would they have? They’re people who want only to outlaw abortions.”
And what do you think your cite actually leads us to conclude? You select a group and direct us to a page where the first sentence talks about driving out demons. These guys are representative of all pro-lifers, is that your point? And what leads you to conclude, from this cite, that they oppose adoption or stronger social nets? Here’s a hint: if you say, “because they don’t mention it,” that would be a logical fallacy. If I go to a pro-gun cite, that does not lead me to conclude that they care not for the first amendment if they happen to be silent on it. But suppose your cite does oppose some of the things you mention. So what? Does that mean they represent all pro-life advocates? Do you think that makes your “always” and “never” statements more plausible? You’re going to need a lot more cites to accomplish that.
Don’t out too much effort into this. I will not shout “gotcha!” if you merely indicate that your absolute statements are probably not supportable.
They’re not?
I think you might be mistaken there - cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite, cite.
Regards,
Shodan
I didn’t cherry-pick the group… 40 days to life is exactly the group mentioned in the OP. The question was “what do they mean when they say ‘pray to end abortion’”. You can go feel free to wear out their website and find for yourself what that means to them.
I never said they oppose these things. I said they aren’t supporting them. I challenge you, go on this group’s website and show me where they’re doing anything of the kind. They aren’t.
So, let me get this straight. In your statement…
…you’re actually not actually explaining what the motives of these particular protesters are by pointing out that pro-lifers “never” and “always” do certain things? The question is whether or not it’s overstatement to say of pro-lifers, “It’s never real pregnancy prevention or supporting the unfortunate, it’s always about using the law to make sex have drastic consequences that enforce puritan morality.” And the answer is, um, yes, that is bigoted overstatement.
Did you read my last post? Yes, the fact that their website mentions these not at all is relevant to understanding the scope of that specific group’s mission. It does not, however, lead us logically to conclude that their membership does not support the programs you reference, even if that group does not. It just doesn’t.
If I am a member of the NRA, that doesn’t mean I don’t support public television, even though you’d find no mention of it on the NRA website (well, I don’t think you would, and I’m not going to check). Remember, you’re impugning all pro-lifers; you’ve concluded that none of them support such things. It’s an unsupportable statement, and this cite does not lead us to conclude otherwise.
The OP posited the question about what this group thinks when they mean “pray to end abortion”. If you want to know what they mean, all you have to do is read their website. Yes, the fact that they don’t mention contraceptives leaves the possibility that they support it. And by this same logic, it also leaves the door open that they support drinking paint or having sex with dead rhinos. After all, they don’t really say, so it’s a possibility, right. The answer to the OP is straightforward. According to the group’s own website, it means they think they’re closing abortion clinics by praying to drive the demons out of it. That’s what their website says. Case closed.
What a barking load of bullshit. A list of anti-choice websites that say “have your baby and give it away”. No mention of how to use contraceptives or avoid pregnancy. No mention of how you can keep and raise your baby. None of these groups are offering to take responsibility of raising all these babies they are inflicting on the world. No offer of financial support to help someone have a realistic chance of raising children.
You’re dodging. Whatever you concluded regarding their motives by perusing their website, you first assigned it by pointing out what pro-lifers “never” and “always” do.
And, yes, since you brought it up, if you assert that pro-lifers in general never offer their support for worthy charities advancing the causes of drinking paint and having sex with dead rhinos, and you supported that assertion by pointing out that it must be so because a particular pro-life group doesn’t mention it on their website, you’d be equally fallacious in this conclusion. And that’s in regard to pro-lifers in general and this group’s membership in particular.
You’re the guy who said that pro-lifers never support certain worthy causes and always have a particular crappy motive. It’s obvious to anyone with common sense that can’t be true, even to someone stridently pro-choice. And now you’re flailing because you were called out on a clearly unsupportable statement. Case closed.
I’m pro-life (and let’s not get into a huge debate about the meaning of that term, OK?).
I support, and have worked for, among other things:
An expanded social safety net.
Access to effective contraception for all (perhaps as part of a single-payer national health care system).
Improved education for all about contraception (could be tough to impose this on religious schools, I supposed, but we’ll take what we can get).
Maternity/paternity leave for all, with some support during the leave (perhaps means-tested?), and a guaranteed return to employment at the end of leave.
Support for good child care, perhaps through tax breaks, or with direct subsidies where necessary.
Gun control, at least for handguns.
An end to the death penalty, for any and all crimes.
While I’m not a complete pacifist, an end to the pointless wars we’ve gotten ourselves involved in.
Affordable, high-quality education for all and an end to the unbelievably unjust system of primary and secondary public school funding that helps keeps the poor poor.
And just about anything that would make it seem to some poor terrified woman who feels like she’s backed into a corner that abortion isn’t her only alternative.
So, if I’m praying for an end to abortion (and I’m not saying that I do or don’t pray for anything – another debate I don’t want to get into right now), let’s not be to quick to make assumptions about exactly what’s involved in my prayers.
No, they are not narrow minded jerks, but they are not pro_life anymore than any other person they try to regard as being anti life, because pro-choice means a woman should control her own body. Choice is for all life not just the life in the sperm and egg but for the life that already exists in human form, not just a fertile egg. It is simply a religious idea not a biological one, and a person should not have to have an abortion if they feel it is wrong, but shouldn’t push their beliefs on others who disagree with them. There is a right to protect oneself and that includes a woman who could endanger her life by a pregnancy.
There is truth in your stating that the clinic’s pickets mean well, their religion urges them(in some cases),but the point is that before abortion was legal, women still had abortions, and many died.
They of course have the right to pray if they feel it will help and it is better than killing doctors or bombing clinics. People have been praying for the end of wars for centuries and there are still wars, even grater ones. But I feel that if people were taught responsible sex (and parenthood) a lot of abortions would be avoided. The adage;God helps them that helps themselves works well. They should in my opinion be willing to pay the taxes to support the children born and not just for a few weeks but until the child is educated and cared for and becomes an adult!
The woman sacrifices herself to bring the child into the world, so if one is forced to do so, the people who are forcing her should be more than willing to take care of, support the child (and the woman) for as long as the help is needed, even if it means sacrificing themselves,if they aren’t willing than they shouldn’t try to force women to follow their religion or ideas.
But you said, “most who claim to be pro-life forget the life once it is full term and needs welfare help or taxes to provide for them.” That’s the point I was responding to. That means to me that most pro-lifers are jerks. You’ve convinced me, so now I hate those guys.
And I always love when someone trots out the “our term is logical and pure, yours is a politically motivated non sequitur” assertion since it’s a once-size-fits-all position. suitable for all occasions. Thanks again for playing!
I agree. And anyone who opposes the abuse of children needs to take said children into their homes to provide a safe environment or shut the @#$% up. Filthy hypocrites.
As a post script, why is the life that is in a sperm any more live then a fertile egg?
This is being done by child welfare and people do pay for it with taxes and foster care. Not so with unwanted or children that are born in poverty.