Pro-Abortion website

PP director resigns

There’s something fishy about Abby Johnson’s resignation.
It’s easy to understand Norma McCorvey changing sides–being the plaintiff in Roe/Wade was like winning the lottery, it gave her a chance to be a right-to-life propagandist instead of a burger-flipper, but this one is less clear.
Posted by OperationCounterstrike at 3:42 AM

1 comments:

deliberateengagement said…
You’ve got to be kidding.
Surely you admit the possibility of a change or hearth. a Metanoia. a fall from the horse?If watching a sonogram of a living fetus in the womb being sucked up a straw won’t change a heart then what possibly could? Can you concede the possibility?

and if this or any person has less than pure motives that does not disprove the possibility of good intent and good action in part or in whole. What has caused you to be so jaded?

I will NOT be approving your comment at Deliberateengagement.wordpress.com.  I will however be willing to engage you in a discussion of the immoratily of abortion in any forum you choose.

As to your front page that says:
“ALL right-to-lifers are murderers.” I am not; therefore you are in error. See https://deliberateengagement.wordpress.com/how-to-debate/

November 8, 2009 5:32 PM
Advertisements

61 Responses to Pro-Abortion website

  1. YOU are mistaken. You admit you are a right-to-lifer; therefore, you ARE a murderer. Because ALL right-to-lifers are murderers. This information comes directly from the Supernatural Entity, and it cannot be contradicted nor even questioned. If it seems not to make sense, the thing to do is pray to the Supernatural Entity to deepen your understanding of the baffling, overwhelming miracles.

  2. Regarding the morality of abortion: feel free to engage THIS:

    Right-to-lifers have one right answer: fetuses are persons, members of the human family, and fully entitled to all the rights and privileges that other humans enjoy.

    But it doesn’t matter WHAT fetuses are. What matters is WHERE they are.

    If something is inside my body, then I’m entitled to have it killed, no matter what it is. No exceptions. Even if it’s an “innocent” person. If you were inside my body, I’d be entitled to kill you, and if I were inside your body, you’d be entitled to kill me. That’s part of the meaning of the word “my” in the phrase “my body”.

    Abortion is homicide, but abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

    Fetuses are not innocent. They may be free of culpable INTENTIONS, but you can be guilty of unintentional violations, and remaining inside another person’s body where you are not welcome is an unintentional, but still impermissable, violation.

    If fetuses were really as good as you seem to think they are, they would not WANT to grow inside another person’s body where they were not welcome. A GOOD fetus would PREFER to be aborted, rather than to commit such a terrible violation against its mother. If it could talk, it would say, as the doctor’s cannula approached, “It is a far, far better thing I do, than I have ever done; it is to a far, far better rest I go, than I have ever known.”

  3. Did you get the two comments I left for you? (edited)
    A: Yes

  4. I see, you are afraid to post my arguments… (edited: false accusation)
    (edited: libelous insult)

  5. Matt says:

    OC
    You state:
    “Right-to-lifers have one right answer: fetuses are persons, members of the human family, and fully entitled to all the rights and privileges that other humans enjoy.”
    No where here do I expound that “one right answer” (though you do phrase it nicely.) The family of right answers are more clearly described and explained by others. Perhaps you could research these and give a more nuanced attack? The right answers are grounded in ethics, spirituality, biology, law and common sense not some religious tenant that you can’t agree with.

  6. Matt says:

    OC,
    Let me ask you again re the PP director.
    Surely you admit the possibility of a change or heart? a Metanoia? a fall from the horse?

  7. Matt says:

    OC,
    In this specific case:
    If watching a sonogram of a living fetus in the womb being sucked up a straw won’t change a heart then what possibly could?

    Specifically I ask you:
    Can you concede the possibility?

  8. Matt says:

    I say again in response to your:
    “ALL right-to-lifers are murderers.”
    I am not; therefore you are in error.

  9. Of course I admit the possibility of a genuine change of heart. But this particular case does not look like one. Too many suspicious bits to it, like the blogger on the “40 Days for Life” site saying he “knew this was coming, for several weeks”. Like the silly idea of someone working as a PP director and not knowing what fetuses are until seeing an ultrasound. Like the idea of a 13-week fetus “trying to get away from” the doctor’s probe.

    One of the running jokes among abortion-docs is, when one gets tired of doing procedures, one can join the opposition and make money as a right-to-lifist propagandist, like former-Dr. Bernard Nathanson and former-Nurse Jill Stanek, and former-Plaintiff Norma McCorvey.

  10. Welly welly welly–you seem to be answering everything you can find to respond to, EXCEPT the pro-choice argument. Which, once again, goes like this:

    It doesn’t matter WHAT fetuses are. What matters is WHERE they are. If something is inside my body, then I’m entitled to have it killed, no matter what it is. No exceptions. Even if it’s an “innocent” person. If you were inside my body, I’d be entitled to kill you, and if I were inside your body, you’d be entitled to kill me. That’s part of the meaning of the word “my” in the phrase “my body”. Abortion is homicide, but abortion on demand is JUSTIFIABLE homicide.

    Are you gonna answer this, or are you gonna continue thrashing and squirming? “Proof by distraction” is not a valid method of debate.
    [deleted: German language limerick on debating style. -DE]

  11. Matt says:

    “If something is inside my body, then I’m entitled to have it killed, no matter what it is.”
    Please provide a proof that this is so.
    Then convince me that even if “entitled” it would be wise? prudent? ethical?

    You’re expounding YOUR unsupported, unsupportable “religious” views on this matter with less substance than the argument you attack.

  12. Matt says:

    I’m not “thrashing and squirming”. I’m answering each of your threads until we get down to a topic of interest.

  13. Matt says:

    as to “fishy” motives sure there are. I’ve not met anyone with pure motives. We all are flawed persons.
    Does that discount that a real change has occurred? Does that change somehow “not count?” Does the new philosophy somehow suffer in that its adherents are converts? If so one or both of us are in trouble.

  14. Matt, you wrote: “Please provide a proof that this is so.”

    Sure, you can keep asking “why” forever. If I give you a proof, you’ll say “Please prove that your proof is valid” and then, “Now please prove that THAT proof is valid”, and so ad nauseum. (See THE PHANTOM TOLLBOOTH: “Just follow this line forever, and when you get to the end, turn left.” Or see Lewis Carroll’s short story “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles”.) Sorry but if you want me to play that game I’m gonna have to start charging a fee per hour. Some things are just true–only a looney would deny them.

    If you don’t agree that you, and only you, are entitled to decide who/what gets to live inside your body, and when, and how long, then I will come locate a part of my body (a finger) inside part of your body (an eye-socket) and we’ll measure how long it takes before you change your mind.

    And you wrote: “Then convince me that even if ‘entitled’ it would be wise? prudent? ethical?”

    The thing about being entitled to do something is, it doesn’t matter whether the something is wise, prudent, or ethical. That’s part of the meaning of the word “entitled”. If you’re entitled to do something (like, for instance, smoking tobacco, or kicking someone off your property), then you’re entitled to do it even if it ISN’T wise, prudent, nor ethical.

    But I’ll give you one out of three: it’s very prudent to abort an unwelcome pregnancy, because growing a pregnancy and giving birth is a big-time medical/surgical trauma which should not be undertaken lightly. Actually that gets you two out of three: aborting an unwelcome pregnancy is both wise and prudent.

  15. Laura says:

    Wait a sec, OC. You say that you’re entitled to kill something inside your body. Let’s use the analogy of a home invasion. If you break into my house and threaten me in any way, I’m allowed by law to defend myself – even if you get killed in the process.

    HOWEVER, if I’ve given you a key to the house, or left the house unlocked, or in any way failed to exercise due diligence to protect myself from a break-in by hostile parties, or if I cannot in some way demonstrate HOSTILE INTENT on your part, I’m legally culpable for whatever injuries you receive as I attempt to get you out of my house.

    You are proposing to treat the unborn child as if he or she were a malicious invader – when said baby was conceived without volition on his or her part, has no capacity (yet) for willful actions – was conceived as a NATURAL CONSEQUENCE of the (we hope voluntary) choices of his or her parents.

    It is a terrible moral wrong to punish the child for something he or she did not choose to do –

    And simply being an inconvenience can never conscionably be offered as justification for homicide/abortion.

  16. Matt says:

    I ask you again in plain English, Why is what you hold to be true indeed true?

    Laura does a good job of countering what arguments you might make but you haven’t yet made them. You’re declaring an “Americanism” not a axiom. Your statement is not a universally held truth that you can point to.
    Your literary allusions are quite erudite – just not relevant.

    I am not asking ‘why’ to snowball you with further questions. I’m asking ‘why’ so you can defend what you say. Have you? even once?

  17. Laura says:

    “If you don’t agree that you, and only you, are entitled to decide who/what gets to live inside your body, and when, and how long, then I will come locate a part of my body (a finger) inside part of your body (an eye-socket) and we’ll measure how long it takes before you change your mind.”

    But then you get back into the idea of malicious intent (of which a baby, particularly an unborn baby, is incapable. You propose to poke Matt (or me?) in the eye to prove a point. You have deliberate control in order to do this, you make a conscious and deliberate choice to violate another’s personal space, be it home or body.

    However, a baby does not pre-exist to command sperm and ovum to unite to give him/her form. If that were the case, I’d have chosen my mom’s height and nose, my dad’s blue eyes, and probably my paternal grandmother’s red hair.

    Again – volition matters. The baby is not capable of commanding its own conception; basically, if you or I engage in sex, we are inviting conception to occur, since the primary object of intercourse is reproduction.

    (Also – you said you were willing to listen; but all you’re doing is snarking. Where’s the listening coming into play?)

  18. Laura, the argument you are making is a nice one, which I call the “invite-someone-in-and-then-kill-him-for-trespassing” argument. Obviously, if you invite someone in, then you should not kill him for trespassing. But the REASON this is so is: by accepting your invitation and entering your property, he gives up the protections he was enjoying by being on his own property or on neutral property. Your invitation contains an implied promise to let him leave when you tire of his company, rather than killing him–to restore to him the rights and privileges he was enjoying before he accepted your invitation.

    In contrast, the not-yet-conceived unborn-to-be does not give up anything by getting conceived. Before conception it had nothing, not even a self. The conceived-and-aborted fetus BENEFITS from being conceived and aborted–it gets to enjoy a short, intrauterine life, from conception until abortion, which it otherwise would not get to enjoy. That’s just so much gained for it. It has no reason to complain.

    (Maybe it had a spiritual experience during that short intrauterine life. Maybe it clasped its little fetal hands together and prayed to Jesus for salvation. Oooops–can’t do it–arms too short. D’oh!)

    Just as donating blood does not obligate me to also donate the NEXT transfusion the patient may need, similarly, giving you a short life inside my body does NOT obligate me to also give you a longer one.

    If, by having sex, I am issuing an invitation to a not-yet-conceived fetus-to-be, the invitation is temporary and conditional. It has the following warning written on it in large letters: “You are invited to live in my uterus, for just as long as it takes me to learn I’m pregnant and get to an abortion clinic; longer only if I so choose. If you can’t deal with the fact that I might decide to abort you, then maybe you should go get yourself conceived elsewhere, inside the body of someone who wants you.”

    That’s why the “invite-him-in-and-kill-him-for-trespassing” argument fails.

    Also, I admit I am snarking, but I am also listening carefully and honestly answering the arguments as they come. Snarking and listening are not mutually exclusive.

    (snark deleted.)

  19. Matt, I will explain why what I think is true, is true, after you explain why what YOU think is true, is true.

  20. Matt says:

    OC, You chose this forum. My house; my rules. Visiting team goes first. (Actually this blog starts us off but you get the sports analogy.)
    We have posted thoughtful reasoned statements of our convictions and arguments to convince others of them. Please read them.
    Then you state your answer to why we’re wrong (and murderers) and what you hold to be true is indeed true.

  21. Laura says:

    OC, you still attribute to the unborn a will and volition that he/she does not possess. Your scenario also has the nature of caricature, or a cartoon like Umbert the Unborn, only not so good-humored or empathetic as Umbert’s portrayal.

    I rather hold with Madeline L’Engle’s assertion, that we think because we have words, and not the other way around; the unborn has not yet mastered words, so I think it safe to presume that – again – the unborn is not capable of volition.

  22. I have already stated the answers to these two questions:

    You’re wrong because you think you are entitled to force pregnant women to grow their pregnancies and give birth against their wills, which is an impermissable violation, and

    You’re murderers because you are right-to-lifers, and all right-to-lifers are murderers. The latter is a fundamental doctrine of the True Faith, and it cannot be gainsaid nor questioned. If it seems not to make sense, you should do what Catholics do when it occurs to them that God cannot be simultaneously One and Three: pray for deeper understanding deeper faith.

  23. Laura, that’s my point. The not-yet-conceived unborn-to-be is not capable of volition, so it cannot accept whatever invitation you may be issuing to it by having sex. The whole idea of issuing an invitation to something which doesn’t exist yet is way too problematic to justify forcing someone to endure pregnancy and childbirth because of it. “You have to grow this pregnancy because while you were getting humped, you issued an invitation, even though you didn’t think you were doing so, to someone, even though he didn’t exist yet.” Suuuure. Where’s the butterfly net???

    Madeline l’Engle’s first book was good (although the transgalactic good-empire vs evil-empire thing is less meaningful than it was during the Cold War) but the sequels were all inadequate.

    Did you read “The Wind at the Door”? In which Charles Wallace gets turned into a mitochondrion? I blogged about this:

    http://operationcounterstrike.blogspot.com/2009/07/mitochondria-have-group-sex-orgies.html

  24. Matt says:

    OC, Shape up. Insults aren’t helping your argument. Why do you liken your murder definition-without-substance with a completely well thought out religious doctrine that you don’t agree with. Thomas Aquinas you ain’t.

  25. Laura says:

    Wait a second. You’re saying that, because we believe that life and death rest in the hands of God alone, and that life is sacred from conception until natural death, we are murderers?

    But if we yield to you the point, and agree that women ought to be allowed to kill the unborn they have caused to be conceived through their own action, and should be allowed to kill those unborn with no suffering to conscience – then we should have become noble and virtuous and ceased to be murderers?

    You’re a deconstructionist, right?

    (And Wrinkle in Time was by no means L’Engle’s first book.)

  26. Laura, no I’m not a deconstructionist. I went to school at one of the top deconstructionist centers and got in trouble all the time for pointing out that deconstructionism is nonsense–it’s a rhetorical technique, not a philosophical position.

    But except for that, your post is exactly right. Well–I’m not so sure converting to pro-choice would make you “noble and virtuous”, but it would make you a former-murderer rather than a murderer.

    Thank you for the correction on l’Engle. Did you read the bit about the mitochondria? How do you feel about the fact that as a mitochondrian, Charles Wallace would have to participate in massive group-sex orgies?

  27. Oh, and I’m very happy not to be Thomas Aquinas. He’s very low on my list of people I’d like to be.

  28. OK, here’s one manifestion of the Unchallengable Doctrine that Right-to-Lifism Equals Murder: If you say “abortion is murder”, then you’re saying that murdering an abortion worker is no worse than what the abortion worker was doing. That’s incitement. It may not always hvae been incitement, but in the face of a clear, consistent pattern where significant every pro-choice political victory is answered by murderous terror, it is incitement now.

    It is no longer enough to say, as the Catholic church-officers say: “neither unborns nor abortion workers should be killed”. Unless you confess that killing an abortion worker is WORSE than any number of abortions-on-demand, you’re a murderer. But if you confess that, you’re not a right-to-lifer, are you?

    Let me emphasise, I do not intend the above paragraph as a proof. The Unchallengable Doctrine that RTLism = Murder needs no proof. It’s one manifestation, in logic, of the UDtRTLism=M. An example.

  29. Zoe says:

    The killing of the fetus is incidental. Women, and all of us, are allowed to “evict” trespassers living off our bodies and causing irreperable damage to them. Right now the only way we can do this involves the killing of the fetus. In the future, this may change.

  30. Matt says:

    OC, you say, “It is no longer enough to say,” etc etc about opposing murder.
    1. Have you read data on abortion-clinic related violence? Even discounting for any amount of creative accounting its clear more people are attacked and yes murdered for being Anti-Abortion.
    2. Why am I responsible for the evils of others when I oppose them and work actively to discourage them?
    3. Would you not say that calling me a Murderer is doing the same thing you accuse pro-life people of doing? If because of your indiscrete application of that title a Pro-Abortion person kills a Pro-life person then you are exactly what you accuse me of.

    I hold and by definition every Pro-Life person holds that to kill an innocent person is wrong. The rest of you just think that a fetus either doesn’t count or doesn’t count enough.

    And we agree that you are not Thomas Aquinas.

  31. Matt says:

    Hi Zoe. Welcome.
    You say “are allowed.” Is it good and right that they do it? I say no. You say “yes’ or “neutral?”

  32. Laura says:

    OC –
    How can you say that one person (an abortion worker) has more or greater intrinsic value than another (the preborn)? Both, to use the Quaker language, have That of God in them, are created in the Image of God, souls for whom Christ died.

    And I’m sure I must’ve read the book you refer to, but the weird science bits I must’ve blipped through, because I’m a lit person, not a science person (INFP on Myers-Briggs, if that helps you) – so I’ll have to get back with you another time about the Charles Wallace weird stuff. Okay?

  33. Laura says:

    Zoe –
    Did you see my arguement with OC, above, about volition?

    Also, I’d protest in disagreement with you that women are designed to be pregnant, bear children. It’s not a pathology to be pregnant and to give birth; it’s a pathology (for which many people go to outrageous lengths to overcome) to be unable to become pregnant.

    So, in short, I strongly disagree with you, and I think the basis of your pro-“choice” opinion is seriously flawed.

  34. Matt, here are answers to your numbered questions:

    1. Number of people killed in USA for being right-to-lifers so far equals ZERO. Even Pouillon was killed for carrying an ugly sign near a high school, not for being a right-to-lifer, according to police. Yes there is the web site “abortionviolence-dot-com” but it’s a joke–the cases listed there have nothing to do with abortion. An abortion worker gets into a bar-room brawl or whatever and they list it as “pro-abort violence”. An abortion patient dies of sepsis, the oversight boards find the death was not the abortion-doc’s fault, just one of those statistically-inevitable bad-luck disasters that happen to everyone from time to time, and the site lists this as “pro-abort violence”. Total silliness.

    2. Since you bring up your activities, please tell: WHAT have you done to prevent anti-abortion terror? More specifically, how much money have you contributed to defray abortion workers’ security costs? Or, to lower them by supporting protective legislation like FACE? If the answer is “none”, then you are, at very best, like the Muslims who say “Yes, apostates from Islam should be killed, as the Qu’eran says, but anyone who says I’m violent is Islamophobic”. That is, you are complicit in ongoing terror-murder in spite of hypocritical, mealy-mouthed denial.

    3. No, calling you a murderer is not the same as what the right-to-lifers do, because you really ARE a murderer, but abortion workers are not. And you wrote “If because of your … application of [the term “murderer”], a [pro-freedom] person kills a [dirty right-to-lifist pro-terrorist murderer] then …” Yes, yes, YES! Amen, make it so! (** Spasm of holy ectasy; must go change underwear **)

    And no, I don’t think “the fetus doesn’t matter (enough)”. I think even though a fetus matters as much as anyone, it’s still not entitled to remain inside another person’s body where it is not welcome. No one, born or unborn, is entitled to do that, no matter how much (s)he matters. (This answer’s Laura’s post, too. Laura, having “that of God” in you does NOT entitle you to remain inside someone else’s body where you are not welcome.)

    And as I said earlier, unwelcome fetuses are NOT innocent. Freedom from culpable intentions does NOT imply innocence. You can be guilty of unintentional violations.

    Also, as I said, I am happy, and proud, not to be Thomas Aquinas.

  35. Matt says:

    Violence against abortion clinics:
    http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_stats.pdf. The abortion coalition’s own data shows its declined. There are a few crazies but they are not prolife nor does a shared philosophical thread tie their guilt to the Pro-life movement.

    Violence against Pro-life activists:
    http://abortionviolence.com/ I have doubted the validity of “8,519 documented acts of violence” since it documents all violence by creeps not just those who happened to be abortionists. So if we discount it by 100 it’s still worse than what the coalition documents. Note also there are indeed murderers here.

    Interestingly if we allow your argument of “same murderous mindset” that you discuss as the reason for Pro-life’s guilt then you have to allow the acts documented at abortionviolence.com against Pro-Choicers. Those figures make Pro-choice a murderous bunch of folks. If you can count Tiller as “Prolife” then any valid data set will count many of these whackos and weirdos as Pro-choice. Its more than 1 in the last 11 years as is the count “against” Pro-life.

  36. Matt says:

    Your analogy using Islam is false. No prolife person anywhere says Abortion workers should be killed but I won’t do it.

    We say Abortion is wrong and we should take all peaceful methods to discourage and prevent abortions.
    No one says what your analogy says. Those who would are not Pro-Life by any definition.

  37. Matt, RE: “we say … we should take all peaceful methods to discourage and prevent abortions”

    Sorry, but threatening to put a woman (or her doctor) in jail for having/doing an abortion is NOT a “peaceful method”. It is a VIOLENT method.

    I believe we should take all peaceful methods to discourage and prevent Catholicism. Would putting Catholics, or those who teach Catholicism, in jail be a “peaceful method”? No, it would be a VIOLENT method.

  38. Matt says:

    Its very interesting and VERY telling that you’ve gone from shouting “murderer” to saying that I’m an advocate for jail time for a post-abortion woman. I’m neither by any sane use of the language.

    How about these other examples of what I suggest would be a valid activity for me? Are any of them violence by your definition?

    How about acosting a pregnant woman peacefully on the public sidewalk in front of an abortion clinic to offer her a safe place to sleep and to feed her baby until she can get on her feet? Is that peaceful enough for you? How about kneeling on the opposite side of the street praying silently? How about voting against politicians who spend public dollars on late term abortion clinics? How about prosecuting statutory rape complicity in clinics who fail to report the 30 something father who brings in his pregnant 13 year old girl friend?

  39. Matt says:

    OC, and spare me the anti-Catholicism. You look foolish and bigoted when you do that.

  40. Matt:

    No, I haven’t gone from accusing you of murder to anything else. I have ADDED the something else to the mix, but the accusation stands. So long as you say abortion is murder, you are a murderer.

    Are you saying you DON’T support jail time for a woman who hires someone to “murder” her unborn baby? Why not? Why should it be any different than the punishment for someone who hires a hit man to kill an already-born person? Are you discriminating against the unborn people? (Even I don’t do that; my position treats unborn people and already-born people exactly the same in all respects.) Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. Do please explain your view on enforcing an abortion ban. I’m not trying to put you on the spot; the better I know your position, the easier it will be to explain why it’s wrong. So: if you could write an abortion ban into law, deciding all the details youself, what would you tell the legislators to put in the “Penalties for Violations” section? Whom should be punished for violating it, and how?

    Oh, and yes, there are murders listed on av.com, but those murders have nothing to do with abortion nor with right-to-lifism. An abortion worker drives drunk and causes a fatal accident, or kills his wife’s lover, or whatever, and they list it as “abortion violence”. That’s garbage, and posting it shows that the whole web-site is bad-faith. You can’t just subtract 100 from their number and go with that. It’s garbage through and through. Besides, isn’t it one of Marc Crutcher’s sites? He’s a shock-jock comedy-act.

    Consider Proposition 1: “Don’t murder Catholic priests, but if you did murder one, that would be no worse than what the priest was doing professionally, because Catholic priestly duties equal murder.” Today, in USA, Prop1 is an abstraction. But if I were to say the same thing in a place or at a time when Catholic priests were regularly and predictably getting murdered by people who believed Prop1, that would be a general incitement to continue terrorizing Catholic priests, and anyone who denied that would be a mealy-mouthed hypocrite.

    [Deleted irrelevant movie reference. -DE]

    Or try this one. Proposition B: “Investment finance (or whatever people did in the Twin Towers) equals murder, and terrorism, so, although there’s plenty of bad things to say about the 9111 hijackers, what their victims were doing was as bad, or worse, than the attacks.” Whaddaya think? How and why is saying it after 9111 is different from imagining a similar event beforehand and using it as a hypothetical example?

    The fact is, in USA, NO ONE has EVER (at least since the late 1970s) murdered anyone FOR BEING A RIGHT-TO-LIFER. In contrast, everyone knows there’s no question WHETHER another abortion worker will be murdered for doing abortions; it’s just a question of when, and whom, and whether it will, at long last, be answered in kind, with counterterror.

    Just one more thing: my anti-Catholicism (or, to use a more objective term, my anti-Poper-Scoperism) is not based on bigotry; it’s based on Catholicism. I also would like to contain and prevent Hassidic Judiasm, not because of bigotry, but because of what Hassidim believe and profess. Wahhabi/Salafist Islam, too.

  41. Laura says:

    OC, Even before 1973/Roe v. Wade, it was doctors who were prosecuted for performing illegal abortions – and I don’t think we heard many items about that in the news. Don’t forget that abortion was allowed in some extreme circumstances, prior to Roe v. Wade (life/health of mother or for the child – a friend’s sister had an abortion in the late 60s after she contacted German measles during her pregnancy), etc.

    I’ve seen no indication of a woman being prosecuted for obtaining the abortion.

    And arrest, trial, financial penalties, jail time… NOT even on the same PLANET as being dismembered and … I hope you get the point.

    Also, drawing parallels between Catholicism and abortion… don’t work. Bad analogy.

  42. Laura says:

    Also, OC – (Matt if you can edit this to add to preceding comment…?)

    If you feel that strongly about the unborn being a nasty little trespasser who deserves to be gotten rid of in the quickest and easiest-for-you way possible, then the only morally responsible thing you can do is to GUARANTEE you don’t get pregnant. And that means men need to keep their flies zipped at all times, and women need to hold that Pill between their knees. Yes, my dear, I am advocating celibacy for those who are adamant that abortion is preferable to pregnancy.

    I know that’s an extreme bit of advice, and very few people will be able to accept it. Before I became a Catholic, I would have counseled doubling up on contraception and/or making it permanent by sterilization; but since I’ve become Catholic, I’ve come to see that contraception and sterilization cause a huge fracture in our emotional and spiritual wholeness, and I cannot in conscience advocate such self-destructive measures, even though I know many people are going to practice them.

  43. Hee hee! Laura, by your logic, unless you know, with absolute certainty, that you will never shoot anyone, the only responsible thing for you to do is have your eyes removed and your hands amputated. To GUARANTEE that you never will.

    And jail may be better than being aborted, but jailing someone is still violent. Not, as Matt had said, a “peaceful” way to prevent abortions, but a violent way. In order to really be a peaceful right-to-lifer, you have to renounce the idea of an abortion ban, and confine yourself entirely to preventing abortions by means of persuasion and/or reward. You can’t support government-violence and also say you’re “peaceful”.

    I will wait until I know more about Matt’s position (when he posts his answer to my question about punishment) before I write more about that. Meanwhile, Laura, feel free to post YOUR position an punishment. If you were making the law, whom would you punish for abortion, and how?

    PS: You want indication of abortion patients being punished? In real life? If you mean before Roe/Wade in USA, enforcement was a joke. Neither women nor docs were prosecuted except for a few symbolic cases. Or do you mean now? Today, the most important real-world examples of right-to-lifism in action are the Philippines, where the law punishes women who get abortions with up to six years in prison, and Mexico (except for Mexico City itself), where women are getting arrested, and taken out of hospitals in handcuffs, for suspected abortions. (You can verify this by going to my blog and following the link in my post “Right-to-lifism in action”.)

  44. Matt says:

    OC, You suggest that by not actually supporting the security and operations of an abortion clinic that I am somehow complicit in the guilt of those who take violate the law and kill workers there. No. No rational person follows your argument there. Think also on the concept of protesters as a protective ring that have PREVENTED violence for years. Here’s a link:
    https://deliberateengagement.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/violence-is-pro-choice/ .
    Can you answer my response to “same murderous mindset”? I think you cannot.
    Finally please find where on the entire Deliberate Engagement website anyone has stated that “abortion is murder.” (Hint: I’ve put a search tool there for your use.) Find any reference to the concept. Point it out to me. We can then debate the “Pro-lifers are murderers because they call abortion murder” accusation.

  45. Matt says:

    OC,
    It would be correct to say that if you know that you could hurt someone because you’re a bad driver or a bad shot then you should sell your car or gun. Your analogy is incorrect. Chastity is not self mutilation. Do you perhaps think it is? Only until this past 50 years or so did sex-as-recreation-with-no-consequences become a “right.” This false right does not reflect the reality of biology and nature.

  46. Matt, my understanding was that the definition of a right-to-lifer is, someone who believes that abortion is murder. If, when you say “I am pro-life”, you don’t mean “I think abortion is murder”, then what DO you mean by it? Do please explain. Also, I’m waiting to see who you think should be punished for abortions, and how.

    RE: “Incorrect analogy”. All pairs of things have some differences and some commonalities. If you point out the commonalities, you’re making an analogy. The fact that there are also differences does not make your analogy “incorrect”. Also, selling your gun wouldn’t work–you still might shoot someone with someone else’s gun.

    You wrote: “no prolife person anywhere says abortion workers should be killed but I won’t do it”. Are you saying Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, is not prolife? He publically prays for abortion workers to be “executed”. How about Senator Tom Coburn, the most anti-abortion person in the whole US Senate? He says abortion docs should be put to death.

  47. Matt says:

    OC,
    I believe abortion is the unjustifiable intentional killing of a human person. This is an immoral act though it is legal in our society in many circumstances. As with preventing any immoral act I am not legally or morally permitted to murder to further the “good” end of preventing abortions.

    See these three articles to explain it further.

    A secular moral argument:
    https://deliberateengagement.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/moral-killing-a-fallacy/

    A general Christian argument:
    https://deliberateengagement.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/moral-killing-a-fallacy-part2/

    And a Catholic Christian argument:
    https://deliberateengagement.wordpress.com/2009/11/14/moral-killing-a-fallacy-part-3-of-3/

    Please stop calling Pro-life a movement of murderers. If you are intending to insult you are succeeding. If you are intending to deter and stop violence then you are clearing failing; in fact you are helping those we both disagree with to justify their thoughts and their potential actions.

  48. Matt says:

    As to Randall Terry see:
    https://deliberateengagement.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/allies-though-i-wonder/
    Homework; OC homework. I’ve seen your site; have you read any of this one?

    Senator Coburn proposes this AFTER abortion laws are in place that make abortion illegal. A proposed death penalty for Abortionists would see some interesting debate. Does that make him a murderer? If you think so then we disagree.

  49. Matt says:

    As far as your self mutilation analogy I think you can let it rest. If you carry it that far perhaps the best thing for you to do is self-immolation after a self-administered lethal injection – well away from bystanders and impressionable children of course. It would firmly prevent you from any chance of transgression in the future however unlikely.

  50. Excuse me, I didn’t say Senator Coburn is a murderer (although he is one, in fact). You said that no right-to-lifers say abortion docs should be killed but I’m not gonna do it, and I pointed out that this is exactly what Senator Coburn says. He says abortion docs should be killed but rather than doing the killing himself he will pass a law and let the cops do the killing. That’s what we call a counterexample.

  51. And yes, you’re right, the ultimate way to make sure you never harm anyone would be to kill yourself. My purpose in saying you should blind yourself and amputate your hands was, to show, by extension, how silly Laura’s idea that one must be celibate, and thereby prevent onesself from needing an abortion, is. Got it now?

  52. Matt says:

    OC,
    You’re an anarchist! How special. If you don’t discriminate between murderous killing and state executions then you’re an anarchist. Your counterexample isn’t.

  53. Matt says:

    OC, I got it. I got it from square one. You don’t get that chastity is a real, healthy, desirable and time honored possible alternative. You hold that killing the unborn is the alternative. I find that immoral. Your view is immoral.

  54. Laura says:

    Matt –
    Not only “not possible,” but also unrealistic & unhealthy. And so, because the pro-life view is in opposition to the accepted narcissistic self-determining world view, we must be demonized and vilified for holding it. Hence, good sense is abandoned, and we are made out to be murderers – however irrational such a position might be.
    [slightly edited -DE]

  55. Laura says:

    OC – not to amputate one’s hands, for I never heard of anyone becoming pregnant that way; rather, to castrate oneself would be more reasonable.

    However, all you say is outrageous. It does not follow that I might kill someone with a gun, or with someone else’s, for I abhor such violence (I’m a former Quaker, and some things stick fast) and would fear inflicting death on someone, even if that one were threatening me.

    You have demonized and villified us because you disapprove our pro-life position. Being prolife is that – in favor and support of life, not only of the unborn, but of all individuals, from conception until natural death. Calling us murderers is irrational and nonsensical.

  56. Re: anarchist

    I’m not an anarchist. I’m not saying the government shouldn’t do violent things. We need the government to do violent things, to criminals, and to wartime foes. I’m just pointing out that having the government do these violent things, is violent. It’s GOOD violence.

    YOU are the one who claims to be non-violent, not I. All I’m saying is, if you support a ban, then you’re violent, and although you can call yourself “anti-vigilantism” or “anti-personal-violence”, you cannot call yourself “non-violent”.

    I do discriminate between murderous killing and state executions. One is illegal violence by a person, and the other is legal violence by a government. They’re different, but both are violent, and saying so does not mean I’m an anarchist.

  57. Laura says:

    OC, I still don’t understand at all how you can suggest that opposing abortion makes us violent.

  58. Matt says:

    OC thinks we’re violent because
    1) He thinks law can only be enforced by ‘violence’ since as an anarchist he ‘knows’ civil consensus and accord are not possible. A ban is indistinguishable from a felony or a capital crime.
    2) He lumps all pro life in with those whom the cartoon characterizes (or should I say caricatureizes) as unable to remain moral while fighting something they hold to be immoral.
    3) He uses ‘murderer’ and ‘violence’ (and ‘terrorist’) flexibly as it suits his argument. This implies he doesn’t like our argument so perceives malintent.

  59. Really, Matt, if the only way you can answer my arguments is by lying about them, then you’re not doing very well.

    I am NOT an anarchist, and I do NOT say that laws are indistinguishable from lawless violence. I say only that both are VIOLENT.

    [OC, but “murder” requires several things under law. I and all other Pro-life workers do not have legal or moral culpability when someone who – by the very action is not prolife – decides to murder anyone.

    I concede I have identified your political affiliation without subjecting you to a full battery of psychological tests and interviews by a trained philosopher. However your statement that something is murder when done by either an individual or the state does not reflect the higher level of moral substance that we have to concede to civil authority

      in its area of responsibility

    In catholic tradition this is known as submitting to just laws. But you know that. -Matt, DE]

  60. I know it’s your web-site, but please, try to confine yourself to good-faith arguments only.

    [OC, I would point out your deliberate misrepresentations. As a matter of fact I have. But I agree we should stay on topic if we can?
    I know sarcasm when I see it but I am completely unable to use in in writing. What you are reading from me are good-faith arguments – though perhaps not well expressed. Work with me here? -Matt, DE]

  61. Laura says:

    Oh, bilge (not at you, Matt). During the Civil Rights actions of the 1960s, Martin Luther King, Jr., warned activists against the use of physical force, urging instead the cultivation and use of what he called “soul force;” this, he said, was the only means by which the evil behind segregation and racial discrimination could be vanquished.

    Soul force is the means by which nearly all of us are fighting the evil of abortion. Those who resort to physical violence only hurt our cause, and we abhor their actions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: