What are you doing about:
[ul]
[li]Torture in Uzbekistan[/li][li]Myanmar’s imprisonment of political dissidents[/li][li]Children in this country sentenced to life without parole[/li][/ul]
And how do you feel about these issues? Don’t care in the slightest, right?
Anti-abortion activists aren’t all the same.
There are the Seamless Garment purists, who object to all euthanasia, capital punishment, etc., & would never kill a human being even in war. At the other end, there are the guys who think they’re the Punisher, smiting evil doctors to save the innocent. (Ever hear of Paul Hill?)
In a lot of cases, anti-abortion activism has nothing to do with sexism, and is merely a fanatical humanism, seeing all human life as sacred. But it may be seen as useful to certain sexist types, or consistent with their worldview.
What are you personally doing about the following?
[ul]
[li]Religious persecution in Sudan?[/li][li]Moslem insurgents in Mindanao?[/li][li]Third-world poverty?[/li][li]Victims of systemic lupus erythematosus?[/li][li]The plight of undereducated migrant workers?[/li][li]Victims of child abuse?[/li][li]Pro-lifers being mischaracterized as murdering terrorists?[/li][li]Underfunded educational institutions?[/li][li]Spousal abuse?[/li][li]The plight of displaced native Americans?[/li][li]Tuberculosis, heart disease and cancer?[/li][li]Systic fibrosis?[/li][li]And so forth, and so on?[/li][/ul]
Are you doing anything about every single one of these causes, beyond the occasional financial donation? Should we conclude that you simply don’t care? Or that you don’t care enough?
I’m touched by your concern for the good name of the lunatic fringe. Nowhere did I say that the typical pro-lifer fantasizes about killing anybody.
It is easy to make false claims about pro-lifers/anti-lifers (or anti-choicers and pro-choicers, if you prefer that styling). Personally, I think anti-abortion and pro-abortion are the most transparent and honest, and therefore the most suitable labels to use from the many that compete for our attention.
One of those false claims for many people (and people do exist who are against abortion - that is, against abortion save in special circumstances - outside the Bible Belt, indeed, outside the US) is that they believe that a foetus is a human being, with all that entails regarding sentience, etc. Many of us believe that a foetus (or a “baby”, as even a diehard pro-abortionist calls their own baby, even at three months, when it’s not very big or developed) is living. Not yet a human being, but living. It follows that any conscious and deliberate decision to extinguish its (his or her, as even a diehard pro-abortionist would say of their own foetus/baby) life should not be taken lightly. It is really not suprising, nor indeed irrational, that many people believe that it should not be legal to extinguish life, except in cases, say, of rape and incest (which often come to the same thing).
Another of the false claims, which does not stands up to even the slightest scrutiny, is that the all the “religious” fanatics are in the church. Increasingly, they are to be found outside it, especially in the US and Europe. The authoritarianism and absence of thinking and critical rational discussion - indeed, even hostility towards thinking and critical rational discussion - that is thought to characterise the church has got inside many secular groups.
The statement to which I responded said absolutely nothing about the “lunatic fringe.” Allow me to quote your own words in their entirety.
See? Nothing about the “lunatic fringe” there. All you have is some unspecified “they.” In the absence of any qualifiers, it’s only natural to presume that you’re referring to pro-lifers in general. In fact, since you talked about them daydreaming about violence – as opposed to actually practicing it – the evidence suggests that your ire was not limited to the lunatic fringe.
But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you are indeed referring to those rare individuals that attempt to kill abortionists. What manner of technology did you use to determine that they daydream about killing abortion doctors, or that they harbor similar thoughts about “women, minorities, lefties” etc? Have you shared this technology with the US government yet? I’m sure they’d love to hear about it.
Nothing. I don’t claim to. I also don’t claim that each of those things is important enough to sway my vote. And no, I don’t donate to the causes, either. When there is a cause that I feel strongly enough about, I get off my ass and do something.
Unless you can find a cause that I claim to base my votes on but don’t get off my ass to support, you’ll be very hard pressed to turn this argument back around on me.
I see. So you don’t care one bit about any of these causes? I had a feeling you would say that.
FTR, I fully agree that pro-lifers need to be more involved in their cause; however, this says absolutely nothing about the validity of the pro-life cause. As with most causes, the vast majority of the supporters mostly just watch by the wayside.
In fact, as long as we’re on this topic, can you tell us why the vast majority of pro-choicers have not devoted their lives to promoting (ahem) “choice”? It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of them are quite content to send the occasional donation checks to NARAL or Planned Parenthood – or to simply do nothing at all. For all their talk about “choice,” why is is that the overwhelming majority of pro-choicers have never volunteered at an orphanage, or provided housing to a pregnant woman in distress? Why have the vast majority of them never volunteered at a job skills class for single mothers? How apathetic these people must be!
Or are we only justified in complaining about the lackadaisical attitude of pro-lifers? Why the double standard?
What is the complete list of causes on which you base your vote?
You misunderstand.
I don’t consider pro-life apathy to be reflective of the validity or lack thereof of the pro-life cause. I consider the apathy reflective of what the pro-life people really think of the cause, which is that it isn’t all that important. I don’t think they, most of them, believe it’s murder. I think there would be less apathy if that were true.
Just as nothing on the list you gave is all that important to me, with the possible exception of research into heart disease. I’m apathetic about them. I just don’t care very much. This isn’t a noble sentiment, or even a nice one.
To repeat: I don’t think this facet of the pro-life movement is unique in any way. I think the pro-choice side is even more apathetic, though they do have the slight excuse that their way has the law on their side so there is less to be done. And, of course, supporters of abortion rights don’t think there is mass slaughter of innocent persons going on, so they have a little less to be fired up about.
The OP said that if people think abortion is murder they should take drastic action. I think that they, on the whole, do not think abortion is murder. That’s the whole of my comment, for or against, the pro-life movement.
Here’s what you’re missing: the failure to take “drastic” action does NOT mean that abortion isn’t viewed as murder. It means that the pro-lifer (at least, I) consider the totality of the circumstances. I’m absolutely convinced that abortion is murder. But I’m equally well aware that a strong plurality of my fellow citizens don’t see it that way. They either see nothing wrong with it, or their objections against it do not rise to the level of overcoming their perceptions about its positive values. With those feelings in place, any kind of “drastic” action is doomed to failure – and, paradoxically, may actually strengthen the resolve of those on the fence by making the pro-life cause seem fanatical and unrealistic.
The slaughter of innocents right now is terrible, yes. But I would rather work step by step, calmly and rationally, because that is the road that ultimately will succeed, and in that success millions and millions of future unborn children will be saved.
I hope that this insight into my rationale will give you an opportunity to re-think your position, since you now have notice that your analysis of my position and approach was flawed.
What steps, specifically?
When did I comment on your position? If you do more than simply vote, you aren’t the type of person I’m talking about. If you get off your ass, I’ll believe you think it’s really murder.
If you only vote, then I’m curious what you think the “step by step” approach is and what it’s getting you. What is the first step? Has it been done?
Note: I didn’t say anything about drastic action. I said action. Up to and including some civil disobedience but not up to and not including murdering people on the other side.
I’m a member of the Knights of Columbus. We are, among many other things, a pro-life group. To that end, we raise money to fund organizations like “Project HOPE”, a crisis pregnancy center that focuses on abortion alternatives. We donate supplies and cash, and supply labor for fix-up needs for their facility. I’ve taught a number of vocational classes there, made available to help women gain skills to allow them better opportunities in the job world. Last year, we donated about two thousand newborn-sized diapers, to be given away to families that needed them. In other words, through this project, we focus on making it economically possible to have and care for a child. Obviously, we also have guidance for adoption placement if keeping a child is simply not possible or wanted.
In my view, helping along organizations that make it possible to consider either adoption or keeping your child is a good candidate for a first step. One reason it’s so easy for people to believe that abortion isn’t wrong is that the alternative is so damn hard. I think working to make it easier is a good thing to do.
Another, parallel candidate for a good initial step is the effort to overturn the wrongly-decided Roe v. Wade. The idea that there is a federal constitutional right to an abortion is simply flawed, and needs to be removed… both from a pro-life standpoint as well as a principled constitutional interpretation standpoint. This will place us where we should be, in a federal democratic republic: with the question of abortion regulation in the hands of the states.
That will allow some states to forbid abortion, and other states to observe the results. They’ll see that, contrary to the predictions of the pro-choice side, we are past the days of coat-hanger abortions and back-alley deaths. This will, in turn, persuade other states to climb on board. As this happens, the understanding of the general populace will follow suit. More people will begin to understand that it is, in fact, murder.
So - those are the steps as I envision them.
Thanks for the explanation. As I said, you’re doing something, putting your hands where your mouth is (or something like that).
I wonder about the above statement, though. I, too, think we’re past the days of coat-hanger abortions and back-alley deaths, but not because those women will simply passively have a baby they don’t want. Yes, some will. Others will use safer illicit means, and still others will simply go where the procedure is legal. And people like me will help them.
I’m just reposting something that JThunder said, because I think it bears repeating in these circumstances
It is entirely possible that there are many pro-life people out there doing their absolute best to stop abortions, its just that they disagree with you about the best way to do it.
And Bricker:
respect++;
Fry
Of course that will happen. It happened in the 1930s, when abortion was much more universally condemned, and it will certainly happen again.
But I think these steps will drastically reduce the number of abortions. If having the child is an economic possibility, if women are convinced that abortion is such a HUGE step to take, then many of those unborn lives will get to draw their first breaths.
There are no villians in this piece. For the vast majority of cases, women choose abortion not as evil murderers: that sort of rhetoric is crazy. They choose abortion as the best of a set of unpleasant choices. I want to help create a world where that isn’t so: where having the child is a more palatable, happier, more life-affirming choice.
The best way to prevent abortion is to make them unnecessary. Would you agree with that?
Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on things like:
Increasing sex education and availability of birth control
Research into more effective forms of birth control
No or low-cost health care for expectant mothers and their babies
Expanded WIC programs
Paid FMLA
Programs to increase the affordability of child care
I have some issues with this.
**1. Hypocricy **
Bricker has certainly confirmed the OP. Hypocracy abound here, thinly disguised in lofty goals.
Overturning Roe vs Wade means you want to take away choice. Fine that you want to help create a world where having the child is a more palatable, happier, more life-affirming choice in one paragraph, and removing any choice altogether in the other, or knowingly open the door to more abortion ‘incidents’. You couldn’t have spelt out hypocrite more clearly.
In the meantime, life-affirming sounds nice, but 9 months of pregnancy should only be forced upon you if you really, really want that. The potential medical consequences of pregnancy are such that you would professionally find plenty of reason to sue any kind of commercial company for such potential side-effects for a very hefty sum, yet you would willingly take away a legal option to prevent women from having that happen to themselves.
2. Religious Motive
This is easily read as “before I formed your body in the womb, I knew your Soul.” It does not state at which point the Soul enters the body, although it is suggested that this happens before the body is formed. The interpretation of formed can be ‘before I merged two cells’, or it can be ‘when your body was shapen and ready to be conceived with all five fingers, lungs, and so on’. If you are arguing that the former is the more likely interpretation, you’re being a very creative reader.
(Also makes me wonder what baptism is for, by the way, as you’ve apparently already been sanctified before birth? Original sin is a very creative Catholic addition, it seems, unless of course this sanctification was retracted after the death of Jesus perhaps? I reckon this would be one of the bigger theological issues … )
Which either means that he had a well laid out plan before he started building Earth (which would suit intelligent design), or (or maybe even and) that he had a full supply of Souls ready and waiting for the endless bodies humanity was and is going to (re)create.
In the days of the bible, it was generally believed that the Soul entered the body upon the first breath of a new-born, the Soul was blown into the body, ‘inspirare’ is the Latin word that comes from here - breathe into.
My valuation of the Bible notwithstanding, I’m not convinced the Book has the definitive word on this and you’re making things up as you feel suit you best. In the meantime, in practice, it has been shown again and again that the best way to limit abortions is sex-ed.
And finally, while we’re at it:
3. Science
The scientific debate is the more difficult one. But if you stick to hard science, I think science doesn’t believe in a Soul. Closest to it is self-awareness, but it is well known in psychology that the concept of self first as an ego-centrist concept, and then that of a unique individual among equals, doesn’t form until long after birth. At 16 weeks, the brain is at the very beginning of its formation. At this point it starts forming the capacity to process sensory input and have early forms of memory. That means that although scientifically there is good evidence that there is nothing wrong in abortions until well after that date, 16 months is a very, very, very safe margin where 100% certainty exists that nothing even remotely like a human being is lost.
4. Individual Freedom
The most ironic I find pro-lifers who are also in favor of individual responsibility. For anything but deciding about something that can so seriously affect your body and life-planning, individual freedom couldn’t be more applicable. Yet you want to take that away. I can’t help think that probably is because it affects mostly women … .
Few people are thrilled to have an abortion. But it beats the alternative for many. Your little pink comfort cushions aren’t going to do much to change that. Instead, sex-ed is the ticket. Fighting poverty and social equality is the ticket. If I look to the Netherlands, which is very liberal, the number of abortions is as low as its number of teen-pregnancies. If you want to bring more Justice to this world, Mr. Bricker, you can fight poverty in your country first before you take away its people’s rights.
Wave the flag and bomb “foreign” babies (acceptable collateral damage) unless they were fetus - then it would be wrong - (am I getting the point here?)…
My question to anti - abortionists: How many children have you adopted? That’s my idea of putting your money where your mouth is.
I don’t follow your logic.
Bricker believes that abortion is murder. He is, because of that belief, trying to decrease the numbers of abortions through certain actions. He would also like to see abortion made illegal.
Where is the hypocrisy in that? I think the first is laudable (though limited) and the second abominable, but neither are hypocritical.