Pages

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

A salute to the pro-lifers of the internet

[Today's guest writer is anonymous.]

It’s easy to dismiss online pro-life work as slacktivism. Sure, you might say, sharing your opinion on the internet will expose you to ad hominem attacks and insults—but if you really want to make a difference, go volunteer in the real world, reaching out to abortion-minded women. And of course reaching out to families in need is a great thing. But I want to challenge the assumption that internet activism is solely about the realm of ideas, while real-life activism is about actually helping people. It’s entirely possible for pro-lifers to assist pregnant mothers in need, without even leaving their homes.

There are numerous websites out there which (inadvertently) provide pro-lifers with the ability to dissuade individuals from seeking abortions. Simply Googling such sites (including forums, message boards, and blogs) will return a litany of locations where people are asking for advice about whether or not they should make a destructive, tragic decision about their unborn child. Yahoo! Answers often features such sad questions in sections regarding Women's Health, Pregnancy, and Adolescent. If people are directly asking for internet opinions about whether their unborn children should live or die, pro-lifers have a duty to speak up—and to go further by sharing local resources that can provide material assistance.

Yahoo! Answers is uncensored. Other forums are unfortunately run by administrators who want to prevent women from hearing the pro-life perspective. Ironically, one of the worst offenders is BabyCenter.com. You’d think that a site called BabyCenter would have no involvement in the end of babies’ lives, but you’d be wrong. On that site, there are two forums dedicated to encouraging abortions: one for abortions for socioeconomic reasons, and one for abortions done because the baby has been diagnosed with a disability, such as Down Syndrome. BabyCenter.com actually does provide extensive information about prenatal development, revealing the humanity of the unborn child—but keeps that information segregated from the forums where they are most desperately needed. The admins block pro-lifers on both of the abortion boards; abortion is never discussed in less-than-positive terms, and the unborn child is dehumanized to the point of obscurity. It's truly troubling and deeply depressing stuff, especially when one considers how many lives those two forums have taken in the span of roughly six years.

And yet, despite this, the censors haven’t won: BabyCenter’s direct messaging system remains available for pro-lifers to share the truth to women considering abortion. On BabyCenter, Yahoo! Answers, and a plethora of other sites, a compassionate, understanding pro-life advocate—taking a religiously neutral position, of course—can indeed provide a lifeline to women who are struggling.

I understand people feeling discouraged. Some days you look at the internet and see little more than pro-abortion trolling. But the internet is an incredibly valuable asset to the pro-life movement. It provides pro-life individuals with practical outlets to make their visions of peace and nonviolence into a reality. So hook up your laptop and get to it!

370 comments:

1 – 200 of 370   Newer›   Newest»
secularprolife.org said...

It is interesting that pro-life people would feel discouraged. The abortion rate is at an all time post-Roe low. At 16.9% it is almost half of the 1980 high point of 29.6%. This is a contentious issue and one in which anyone (on either side) who thinks that the stakes aren't that high is a pinhead. Thinking that "you're side" (regardless of which side that is) is going to just bend half the country to your will seems utterly irrational to me. But, hey, that's just me, I suppose.


Why it has decreased is, IMO at least, is a matter of some discussion and, again IMO, likely to be an assortment of reasons, rather than any single one. Both pro-choice and pro-life people, despite their differences, have common interests where they could work together to advance both of their causes, at least in theory. My guess, totally unsupported of course, is that this where progress is most likely.


My only gripe with activism, internet or otherwise, is that people, myself included unfortunately, all too often think that changing people's minds involves something other than working with them to address their real concerns.

secularprolife.org said...

I applaud the pro lifers who support legislation that helps pregnant women. Sadly, they are not the strongest most vocal force in the PL movement, as that belongs to the evangelicals, who use abortion and contraception as a dog whistle to force those filthy independent sluts back into the kitchen, biblical style, where they belong.

secularprolife.org said...

No you don't, not if you seek to legally obligate women to remain pregnant against their will, knowing that many women *will* die and that many *will* be irreparably harmed.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, support for abortion has remained relatively static over the last 40 years.

secularprolife.org said...

If you want to resort to character assassination in discussing this matter, then there's nothing more for me to do. Likewise, if you remain incapable of recognizing that there are two lives involved in every pregnancy, then I can't do anything more to make you see that fact.

secularprolife.org said...

Many young people and consistent life ethicists have taken it upon themselves to educate people on the dangers of all forms of violence. That's what I'm getting at here.

secularprolife.org said...

It isn't character assassination. You can claim that you respect women's lives until you are blue in the face, but if you mandate forcing women to remain pregnant, with the full knowledge that a percentage of women will DIE as a result, then how can you, with a straight face, claim that you care about female life?

I have been told, by many on this site, that a rise in maternal mortality is an acceptable scenario, because more embryos will be saved if abortion is illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, it is. You're attributing a viewpoint to me which I do not hold. The destruction of all life is unacceptable, and everything should be done to save both lives involved in a pregnancy. Furthermore, I don't see how it's pro-woman to support the killings of roughly 62,500 girls per day.

secularprolife.org said...

Not all women can be saved from dying from pregnancy. Pregnancy related deaths can neither be predicted nor prevented with strict accuracy.

How is a lifesaving abortion going to help a woman who bleeds to death during birth?

How is a lifesaving abortion going to help a woman who is bipolar and commits suicide because pregnancy hormonal imbalances made the symptoms worse?

How about all of the desperate girls who will attempt unsafe abortion with a pencil? Or poison? Or suicide?

You know that All of the above will happen if abortion is illegal. Yet you still want to ban it.

So, I stand by what I said, you cannot claim to be for female life when you know that legislation you approve of WILL KILL WOMEN AND GIRLS.

secularprolife.org said...

And the lack of legislation you support has also led to those things, in addition to the deaths of millions of other unborn girls (and boys).

Consistent life ethicists support life for everyone, not just one class of people.

Clearly, I can't engage with you on this issue without you resorting to some level of intellectual dishonesty. So, I won't.

secularprolife.org said...

You are not consistent if you support legislation that you know for a FACT will kill women. Sorry.

You should be honest, like other abortion opponents here, and admit that a few thousand dead women is acceptable in order to save embryos. Because that is *exactly* what PL legislation will result in.

secularprolife.org said...

I understand the pro-life standpoint and I don't have the same pointed criticism of it when it is expressed in the way you put it rather than an appeal to tradition or essentialism or pseudo-philosophical arguments relating to responsibility (e.g., Humanae Vitae). Rather, I agree with you in so much as I think what you have expressed is ONE of the values that we should live by.
That being said, the pro-choice position is underpinned by appeals to individual freedom, or more accurately, autonomy. The idea that each of us gets to choose the kind of life we live is also a powerful value we seem to hold. Especially in a society in which we seem rather skeptical about using societal resources to compensate individuals for personal choices they make.
That, I think, is the crux of the problem. We have two fundamental values that come into conflict here (and a third if you hold a politically libertarian viewpoint).
IMO the problem is
exasperated because both sides seem to think that issue should be easily resolved without actually addressing and finding a solution to the conflict. That is, both sides prefer to resort to brute political force to "get their way." I think this is bad for finding a solution to this particular problem and, more generally, why American politics is so dysfunctional that sometime I hope we get invaded by Canada.

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, I think that acknowledging that fact (two lives) on BOTH sides is the first step in actually making some real progress on this issue.
Unfortunately, however, I think most people, on both sides, are too interested in "winning" to do that.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm game.

I think that most of the consistent life ethicists I've talked to are capable of addressing that fact. It's all about going mainstream, though.

secularprolife.org said...

Yep. And it comes down to which lives should take precedence. Honest pro lifers will admit that women should die to save a greater number of embryos. It is strictly utilitarian.

I guess if a woman was unconscious in an IVF clinic, and 1000 embryos were housed next door, and there was a fire, and there was only time to save one, the pro lifer would save the embryos, because embryos = more lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Honest pro-lifers would work to save all lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh secular natural law. How cute. I'm wondering something: do you think that I could change your mind about abortion by appealing to Kant? I expect not.
So why do you think that appeals to secular natural lawz ("philosphizen') are likely to be very persuasive with regards to convincing someone that they should do something as life changing as having a child when they either don't have the resources or rebel against the very idea being forced to have a child against their will?

secularprolife.org said...

Nope, can't save both. Only time for one. 30 seconds and both rooms blow up.

secularprolife.org said...

I'd argue that natural law protects all individuals and their lives, liberties, and properties. Those protections would be expanded to all lives in a truly fair society.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm reminded of the neoconservatives who argue that we need to bomb them before they bomb us. Or that we need to torture The Terrorists™ before they kill an innocent person.

I keep forgetting not to engage.

secularprolife.org said...

See. This is the point where dialogue always breaks down.
PCers are REALLY committed to the idea of autonomy. Arguing that some nar'url law somehow trumps those concerns leads the unenviable position where we are the world leaders in late term abortion. Yay 'merica!
Really, its the intellectual equivalent of PCers who argue with PLers by trying saying things like "an eight month fetus is just a clump of cells." Great! Good to know! Glad we all agree!

secularprolife.org said...

And Canada is somehow a society which values unborn life?

No, I think that individualism and the protection of unborn life can be reconciled. I may not agree with everything he said, but Lysander Spooner made many good constitutional arguments in the name of defeating slavery.

secularprolife.org said...

Read my post below. My main point is that individual liberty extends only so far as one is not jeopardizing another's life.

secularprolife.org said...

Evasion.

If you willlingly kill people to save another group of people you cannot claim to be "for all life"

secularprolife.org said...

"Evasion."

...is your middle name.

I oppose progressives who favor the destruction of unborn lives, and I oppose neoconservatives who favor the destruction of Afghan/Iraqi/Pakistani lives. Neither side is consistently pro-life.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, that's productive. Argue that the state should decide that a woman's uterine wall isn't hers by appeals to slavery.
Ugh. This is why PLers get labeled misogynists. Its not anything about being PL per se that entails that someone be a misogynist to be a PLer. But those that thing that a woman's physical integrity and her interest in her own autonomy are so trivial that they don't need anything more than, at the very most, a gloss over are rather hardcore misogynists.

secularprolife.org said...

Reading comprehension is key. I said that one can use constitutional arguments to advance the cause of human life, and I used slavery as a past example of that.

No, I'm not a misogynist. I don't despise somebody because of a factor they cannot control (gender, race, sexual orientation). There are two lives involved in every pregnancy, and failing to recognize that the unborn child's is her own is unscientific. That's what the opposition fails to recognize.

secularprolife.org said...

So you admit that you are not in fact consistently pro life, since dead women is an acceptable loss to save unborn lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Intellectual dishonesty, we meet again.

secularprolife.org said...

You have no room to pretend to understand what being pro-life means, since you disregard the 62,500 girls killed through abortion every day.

secularprolife.org said...

If individual liberty does not extend to your body internally then that concept is content void.
Your posts have an utter disregard for liberty issues other that being born. After that, meh, it seems. Fair enough. You don't care about the hardship that the rules you want to impose will cause. OK. That, I take it, is because you don't see those that you harm as being worthy of your concern.
But don't complain when your concerns are treated in the same dismissive way.

secularprolife.org said...

You haven't managed to refute me, you just come up with ad homs.

You cannot logically claim to be FOR EVERY LIFE if you want to force some people to die.

Forced gestation and birth will kill women. This is a FACT.

secularprolife.org said...

You're the one who's being dismissive...of the unborn child's right to her body.

I've read the other side's arguments, and I disagree with the notion that the unborn child's body is the mother's property. And like I've said before, we should do everything we can to help pregnant women. I'm not in favor of tossing them out in the cold. There are two things which need to be done: protecting all life by refusing to acknowledge the destruction of any life as legitimate, and working to help those in dire circumstances through any nonviolent means possible.

secularprolife.org said...

Two lives, you say. Odd, you only seem to care about one of them. Interesting.
But if you are talking about tactics then, sure, you can make constitutional claims in support of PL positions. And I can make constitutional claims in support of PC positions. Heck, you'd be hard pressed not to be able to make constitutional claims in support of any position if you have even a modicum of creativity. So what?

secularprolife.org said...

62,500 girls.

You're the one who compared me to slavers; your every argument, from the very beginning of this conversation, has been marked by character assassination and ad hominems.

Double yawn.

secularprolife.org said...

Being PL means privileging the unborn over women's autonomy, health and lives.
At least honest pro lifers will admit this.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree. I am being dismissive. Do you find it persuasive? No? THAT is my point.
Why do you think being dismissive on your end is likely to be anymore persuasive?
I can assure you that it is not. In fact, I find that people like you are no small part of the reason that I tend to think all PLers are Rick Santorum clones.

secularprolife.org said...

I care about both. Like I said, we should help everyone facing dire circumstances. If you cannot see that I am in favor of helping both the woman and her unborn child, then I can't open your eyes. But you cannot help both by destroying one life.

And you cannot extend constitutional arguments to favor destroying human lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, condemning women to a loss of autonomy, physical harm and death in favour of a fetus is exactly what the slavers did.

secularprolife.org said...

Irony: listening to you preach about honesty.

I'm done here, too.

secularprolife.org said...

The Supreme Court says otherwise.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, I'm wrong? Prove it.

secularprolife.org said...

Rick Santorum favors warfare. I don't.

I've read the arguments made by the opposition claiming that autonomy legitimizes destroying other lives. My rebuttal is that autonomy does not extent toward violating others' rights, including the rights of the unborn.

I have made that point before.

secularprolife.org said...

And the Supreme Court is always right?

The destruction of all life is unconstitutional.

secularprolife.org said...

Youre not in favour of helping the woman if you know for a fact that the pregnancy could irreparably harm and even kill her. Empty words.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm done here, too.

secularprolife.org said...

The unborn human has no right to the woman's body, just as slavers had no right to their slave's bodies.

See how that works?

secularprolife.org said...

No, and neither would anyone else.

I can't debate someone who insists on comparing her opponent to slavers.

Done here.

secularprolife.org said...

I have. And you don't listen.

I won't be responding to you in the future.

secularprolife.org said...

I could care less about your appeal to warfare. I had pizza for lunch. So what? That is a really weird non-sequitor, bro.
But, OK, lets take you at you face value when you say that you value women as actual persons and not just baby makers. I have a question then, how do you think that society should shield women from the harshness of your proposed legal rules? How do you think that they should be compensated for being forced to something as big as bring a child into the world against their will?
Because if you're answer is, fck em', not my problem, you can save me the crocodile tears.

secularprolife.org said...

So you say. It seems that, at the present however, that statement is demonstrably false.

secularprolife.org said...

Read what Abby Johnson has to say on that matter. All I'll say.

secularprolife.org said...

The word you want is exacerbated, not exasperated. People become exasperated. Issues become exacerbated.

secularprolife.org said...

Its always telling when people who say they value life think that their wallet should largely be immune from the values they profess.
I see you value life soooo much that you'd be willing to help a women out, provided that it was in dire circumstances.

secularprolife.org said...

You have? No, you just deny and put your fingers in your ears and refuse to explain how it is possible to be *for all life* while willingly condemning women to death for having sex.

secularprolife.org said...

Thanks :)

secularprolife.org said...

I'd be willing to help ANYONE if they were in trouble. I participate in charities and serve my community. I just don't boast about it.

secularprolife.org said...

Forced gestation = approved by slavers

Forced gestation = approved by pro lifers

secularprolife.org said...

Another evasion.

secularprolife.org said...

No one should be allowed to end another person's life. Neither a man nor a woman should be given that ability; it's unjust.

I don't view women as just "baby makers"; at no point did I suggest that, and if you associate all pro-life speech which condemns abortion as anti-woman, then there's nothing I can do for you.

I'll help anyone who is in trouble, be it emotionally or financially. But I will not support the destruction of another person's life in the name of "autonomy".

secularprolife.org said...

If you know that women will die, and you know that this absolutely CANNNOT be prevented 100% of the time, then you can't claim that you want to help the woman.

secularprolife.org said...

If you want to place a huge burden on the lives of certain individuals, the least you should do is pay the full cost of admission.
So, I suppose, you don't want women to have an abortion. Fine, you should compensate them for the emotional, physical, and financial hardship that results from the imposition of your preferences. If you balk at the idea, fine, but that seems like prima facie evidence that your concern only runs wallet deep.

secularprolife.org said...

It sounds as if you're holding the child hostage unless someone pays up.

But yes, I would have no problem paying people to not kill other people.

secularprolife.org said...

And how should society compensate the women who DIE from forced birth?

secularprolife.org said...

OK. If you'd be willing to pay the full cost of the burden you want to impose then I don't really have much to criticize you about.
But you're going to have to be willing to pony over the full amount not just pennies on the dollar.

secularprolife.org said...

Read. What. She. Says. On. That. Matter.

Here's another link worth looking at: http://www.lifenews.com/2013/10/14/abortion-doctors-not-really-any-reason-for-an-abortion-to-save-a-mothers-life/.

If you believe that it should be legal to kill millions in order to save a few, then you can't claim to profess morality. I want to save both, but I will not support the full-scale devaluation of unborn or born lives.

secularprolife.org said...

The "unborn child's life" is NOT "her own." You are correct that two *parties* are involved with every pregnancy. One party will get along just fine without the other. The other party, not so much. The "needy" party is always beholden to the interests of the one supplying the need when it comes to our physical structures. To put it a different way, your need for my blood (or any other tissues, organs, etc.) is secondary to my right to keep it for myself. Even if it means you die. If I decide to give you my blood, organs (including the use of my uterus) that's a gift. NOT an obligation.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't place monetary value on people's lives.

secularprolife.org said...

Exactly. If a woman's body, life and health comes second to that of a fetus, because LIFE IS PRECIOUS, then why do PL wallets come before that life?

secularprolife.org said...

Fair enough. I'd be willing to trade increased restrictions on abortion in return for universal free healthcare, universal free day care, mandatory paid maternity care, etc...

secularprolife.org said...

If one were to extent that argument to money, he would be regarded as a social Darwinist.

Depriving others of needed resources, be it money or a body they are physiologically bound to, is amoral. Hence my support for charities and my opposition to killing.

secularprolife.org said...

Why, because a fat wallet is the most precious of all things, silly. (I wish I could type in Gollum's voice...)

secularprolife.org said...

Would you advocate that a suicidal woman be forced to give birth, if the unwanted pregnancy is the source of the suicidal ideation?

secularprolife.org said...

Pro life wallets come before the ACA which would lower infant mortality rates.

secularprolife.org said...

Your argument:

"I want to keep my wallet for myself." = evil.

"I want to keep my body, which my child is physiologically dependent on, for myself." = moral.

secularprolife.org said...

If you are more concerned about your money than people's lives, then you certainly do.
So, how much savings do you have and why haven't you used to save the lives that you say are so precious?

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for being honest and finally admitting that women are of less value than embryos and that you are not in fact "for all life" as you consider women to be EXPENDABLE.

secularprolife.org said...

And if you are more concerned about your right to your body than other people's lives, then you certainly have no room to talk.

Your second argument essentially boils down to shut up and give me everything you have.

secularprolife.org said...

Well, at least we've teased out your real concern. Well, good luck with your bank account.
Now, if only those damn women would stop caring so much about their own lives....

secularprolife.org said...

You want to end women's lives through forced gestation. Be honest.

secularprolife.org said...

You cannot help both, period. Here's a few other things you can't do. You can't make someone who really, really doesn't want to be pregnant accept the pregnancy. You cannot relegate women to gestational slavery because of sad feelies. And you cannot extend constitutional protections to the unborn. These protections vest at live birth. They vest at live birth precisely because you cannot force gestational slavery on women. Women are intelligent and will not accept that. She will destroy an unwanted pregnancy by any means necessary, just as real life slaves did. Even by the taking of her own life. Just how far into the police-state are you willing to go?

secularprolife.org said...

I won't be writing back to you anymore, so you might as well save your breath.

If you aren't smart enough to realize that that isn't the worldview I hold, then you aren't smart enough to debate others. You used ad hominems, and I'm returning the favor.

Bye.

secularprolife.org said...

My argument is that you should compensate people if you make then choses to do things they would not otherwise do.
I'm a monster. I know.

secularprolife.org said...

Money would lower the infant mortality rate. If every pro lifer sold their house and paid for medical assistance, the lives of many sick babies could be saved.

secularprolife.org said...

No police state. Just an opposition to destroying an unborn life because he or she is inconvenient.

Are the women in the womb also intelligent? You can save both, and those who deny that fail to understand the pro-life position.

secularprolife.org said...

That argument doesn't extend to money. Money is not bodies. And I don't "owe" any part of my physical body to anyone. EVER.

secularprolife.org said...

And my argument is that no man or woman should be able to end another's life. I'm a monster, I know.

That's enough for today.

secularprolife.org said...

That would only happen if pro-lifers were as concerned about saving unborn lives as they say they are.
Which they are not, of course.

secularprolife.org said...

There are no women in wombs, and there is no intelligence in wombs.

secularprolife.org said...

Well if you don't believe in forced organ and tissue donation from everyone, then you are putting bodily autonomy ahead of lives.

secularprolife.org said...

I don't care to read Scabby Johnson's lies.

secularprolife.org said...

And your real concern is not having to take care of others' lives.

I will always insist on helping those who need help, but I won't declare that to the whole world for all to hear.

Bye.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes you are. Not because you are against abortion but because you think that you should have no obligation for the misery you intend to cause.

secularprolife.org said...

No it is not.

secularprolife.org said...

And killing unborn children doesn't cause them misery?

secularprolife.org said...

Scientific illiteracy.

I'm done trying to talk to two people now.

secularprolife.org said...

"I will always insist on helping those who need help, but I won't declare that to the whole world for all to hear."
Shhhhh..... It would just be horrible to express such a sentiment publically...

secularprolife.org said...

As it was 160 years ago.

secularprolife.org said...

Because boasting about acts of, say, community service is what community service is all about.

But yeah, I help people. I help people all the time. I could be helping people right now. But I'm wasting my time trying to talk to you.

And now I'm done trying to talk to you.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh, it's clear that this is the worldview you hold, you are just too chickenshit to admit it, because it shows your true colors, which is why you keep telling me off.

secularprolife.org said...

No, because they are mindless.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh I understand it. And I understand the science (probably better than you). I have pointed out to you that 1) there are no women in wombs, 2) there is no intelligence in wombs, 3) you cannot help a fetus, only it's mother can help it, and she isn't obligated to do so. And finally 4) the constitution doesn't apply to potential persons, only actual persons. This is science, and this is law. Money is not the same thing as your body, so I'm ignoring any comparison you make between the two. You are not *using science* so stop deluding yourself. I get it that you have sad feelies about a lost pregnancy. Get over it. It's not your issue, and it never was.

secularprolife.org said...

Forcing women to give birth even if it maims and kills them isnt helping them, kiddo.

secularprolife.org said...

And my argument is that no man or woman should be able to end another's life

No, your argument is that pro-lifers should be able to end female lives through forced gestation and birth.

secularprolife.org said...

Explain to me why you think I hate women. Because I don't. I simply disagreed with your argument that the right to one's body extends to ending someone's life.

I'm only interested in hearing your argument.

secularprolife.org said...

I am genuinely interested in writing that "mis-perception".

secularprolife.org said...

What natural law does that?

secularprolife.org said...

I should rephrase. I think that you display a rather shockingly callous disregard for the wellbeing of women. Here is my argument:
P1: Respecting a person mean valuing the interests, concerns, goals, and wellbeing of the person.
P2: You don't think that pregnant women who don't want to have a child has an interest in her autonomy that is even worth addressing let alone placing some modicum of value on.
C1: You don't think (pregnant) women are worthy of respect.
TO BE VERY CLEAR, I do NOT think that sort of callous disregard for women is typical for SPLers generally.

secularprolife.org said...

Here is my rebuttal, and I'll leave this here for all to read:

Some seem to believe that I am anti-woman because I do not believe that the right to one's body extends to taking the life of the unborn child. I still hold to that, but it has nothing to do with the person being a woman and everything to do with the fact that the unborn child should not be killed.

Likewise, there is never a need for direct abortion in order to save the mother's life. If the mother's life is in danger, then physicians should work to save both lives; if they can't, then they can work to save the life of the mother. There are always means of doing this without resorting to direct abortion, as Abby Johnson has written about in regards to ectopic pregnancies.

I hope that clears things up.

secularprolife.org said...

I addressed these below.

1. I understand her socioeconomic concerns. I think that we should help her by providing her with food, clothing, shelter, and any other nonviolent resources. But we shouldn't legitimize the idea that the unborn child's life should be taken.
2. It should be addressed. I get why women don't want to give birth; I just don't think it should be legal. Instead, financial and personal support. And no screaming "murderer". That doesn't help.
3. I respect pregnant women, and I'll help make their lives easier in any nonviolent way possible.

I hope that cleared things up, again.

secularprolife.org said...

Is there really so much pro-abortion trolling on the Internet?
Your anonymous commenter forgot to congratulate this blog for a comments-section that is, as far as I can see, completely free of it.

secularprolife.org said...

"Some seem to believe that I am anti-woman because I do not believe that the right to one's body extends to taking the life of the unborn child."
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
I'm certainly not painting all pro-lifers as woman haters. You are one because you don't give a sht about the misery your proposed rule will cause to women.
So here is the difference. You could care for starters. And you could show that care by showing how you think that we could change the legal rules we live in to make the effect of your proposal less harsh.
Or you can walk around with your baby killer sign. Your choice.

secularprolife.org said...

Gravity? The small force?
I give up. Which one?

secularprolife.org said...

I just said that I hate the term "baby killer" and would never use it.

I do care. I just said that we should give them the resources that they need. But we shouldn't legalize the destruction of life; most pro-lifers recognize that abortion should not be legal. Like I said, let's ban it, but let's also make it unthinkable by giving people what they need to prevent it from happening: financial resources. Makes their lives easier.

secularprolife.org said...

Let's help them by giving them everything they need so that ending their unborn children's lives will remain unthinkable, while also seeing to it that such an act will not be legitimized or legalized.

secularprolife.org said...

I am asking the OP. Did I make a mistake and answer the wrong post?

secularprolife.org said...

Nah. I just couldn't resist making a snarky comment about secular natural law, whatever that is supposed to be.
I have to admit that I find the whole notion that we should look to nature for moral inspiration as rather counter intuitive.

secularprolife.org said...

I thought that was your position. The OP is a dramatic idiot.

secularprolife.org said...

Amen.

secularprolife.org said...

You forgot the *sarcasm on*/*sarcasm off* tags. :)

secularprolife.org said...

I wasn't being sarcastic, myintx.


I rarely see trolls on this site, and I've never seen any pro-abortion trolling.

secularprolife.org said...

They only look to nature when it comes to abortion, as they can't say that life trumps bodily autonomy and then deny dying 5 year old children their bone marrow (,because tissue donation is not natural).

secularprolife.org said...

Many of the posters here are well aware of the harm that pregnancy can cause. They have acknowledged this, and explained that unborn life is more important. However, they just use more euphemisms and speak of negative and positive rights. They hide behind elite intellectualism, but in the end they know full well that what they seek will cause misery, and they don't care.

secularprolife.org said...

Yes, you are definitely anti-woman, as you put your wallet and your own bodily organs ahead of 'saving lives' yet you are completely nonchalant about harming and even sending women to their deaths should abortion be outlawed.

Likewise, there is never a need for direct abortion in order to save the mother's life


Not true at all. In certain cases the embryo will have to be removed in pieces.

secularprolife.org said...

1) You gonna fork over 250k to raise a kid? You gonna pay her hospital bills and lost wages if she loses her job because she came down with toxemia and has to spend a month in bed?



Yeah. Thought not.


2) Financial and personal support aren't gonna help a woman who would rather be dead than be forced to gestate. What are you going to do, tie her down for 9 months and force feed her?


3) No, you don't respect pregnant women at all, which is why you would gleefully condemn them to death by fetus for the crime of having sex and/or being raped.

secularprolife.org said...

Oh there are ways we could work together. But you're assuming that reducing the number of abortions is really their goal. It isn't. What they want is to control the fate of women via their fertility. There's no way to work together with that goal in mind.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. Because we shouldn't.

secularprolife.org said...

No, there are NOT *always* ways of dealing with ectopic pregnancy that do not involve "direct abortion." You are babbling meaningless papist nonsense. Catholicism is full of pretending. Removing the entire fallopian tube is just as "direct" an abortion as cutting into the tube and removing the embryo. The difference to the embryo is none. but the woman is punished with infertility. There are ways to treat ectopic pregnancy without inflicting infertility on the woman, and they ought to be used. There is no harm done to the embryo either way, because a tubal pregnancy is not sustainable under any circumstances.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. That would have killed my mother. No thank you.

secularprolife.org said...

What my mother needed was abortion. What would you have given her? Most likely a casket. You are a horrible person.

secularprolife.org said...

In all fairness, that is their right to do so. They don't owe bone marrow to anyone. And you don't owe the use of your uterus to anyone either.

secularprolife.org said...

I agree and I disagree, but this is just my opinion, so take it for what its worth.
I don't think that very many PLers are using abortion as a mere pretext to control women's fertility (are sexuality).
I do think that many pro-lifers, especially the religious variety, do think that it is important to control women's fertility (and sexuality). I think these are two interrelated but separate goals though. These folks are easy to identify-- they spend an inordinate amount of time pratting on about responsibility and how the purpose of sex is procreation.
And I do think that there are PLers who are not motivated to control women or by pernicious old world believes about sex, sin, souls, etc..
Its the last group of PLers (and NOT the first two) that I think PCers (who are motivated by the right reasons as well) really ought to be able to work together. Because many of the policies that would actually reduce the demand for abortion are policies that would make women's choices regarding pregnancy and abortion less constrained in a meaningful way.
Or at least that is my take on it.

secularprolife.org said...

Eloquently stated!

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. There IS no "other" and as we have already established, you do not owe anyone the use of your body.

secularprolife.org said...

Sure they do. And the secular ones prattle on about responsibility, too. They omit the ooga-booga about "souls" and "gods" and substitute nature and so-called human rights. Only there is no human right to the body of another, ever. And women are the ones with the human rights, including the right to determine the trajectory of her own life, and not have that plan derailed by a random biological occurrence. Scratch the surface of any anti-choicer, and you get a misogynist. EVERY time.

secularprolife.org said...

Point being, they prattle on about how life is precious, so *very* precious that women must be deprived of their bodily autonomy, and perhaps even harmed or killed, but when you bring up their wallets or their bone marrow to save the PRECIOUS LIFE of a dying child, they suddenly list 500 reasons as to why it is wrong to deprive them of their money and/or their bodily autonomy.

If life is so precious that it requires such a sacrifice from women, then why isn't life as precious under any other circumstance? Why does this rule ONLY apply to pregnancy?

secularprolife.org said...

Because clearly it doesn't apply to *any* situation. Including pregnancy. It's all faux concern.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah. KB went on at length about the preciousness of life, and how it is a tragedy if cut short, but she assured me that her concern only applies to the unjust death of embryos and not diseased children.

So the lesson I get from this is that ONLY embryonic life is precious, based on location.

secularprolife.org said...

I wouldn't. That being said, if all those things were reality, abortion rates would decrease all on their own. There would be no need for more restrictions, because women wouldn't be pressured as they are here. Nations that have those things also have liberal abortion laws, but much lower abortion rates.

secularprolife.org said...

Not very often I meet someone more pessimistic about human nature than myself.
I think I share your visceral reaction when people think that they can dismiss the real world implications of their actions through ostensibly disinterred "arguments." Nietzsche's insight about people who are quick to punish seems on point here.
Still, there is plenty of content here about helping women in need out, providing better maternity care, etc that, in my opinion at least, shouldn't be dismissed.

secularprolife.org said...

Of course it shouldn't be dismissed! If we had a society that did more for women and mothers than "lip service" there would be no need for restrictions on abortion. That isn't what they want.

secularprolife.org said...

Yeah, they will talk about universal healthcare and whatnot, but when push comes to shove, they want to see abortion banned before any socialist reforms materialize, if they ever do.

I don't have a problem with the folks who simply want to change hearts and minds, as they are not voting to deprive women of their rights. Though the misogyny can still be irritating

secularprolife.org said...

I was reading a thread for 'mums' out of the UK the other day. They were discussing a young mom who was having a hard time coping with her little kids - no family near, partner not near helpful enough, etc. They suggested calling social services, which would have a worker come around for evaluation, then provide a helper to come tale the kids for a couple hours a week.

Many of the other women had been there, done that and had glowing things to say about the services, that just that little time to themselves to look forward to each week got them through.

Socialism! Communism Yeah, and who knows how many families' sanity saved each year. Gotta be be 'satan's work, for sure.

secularprolife.org said...

Nature - the actual, observable kind - has shown us that pregnancy and childbirth are often the most deadly times of a woman's life. How many of us have grandfathers, et al, with one, two, three wives and numerous children? Those weren't divorces those couples were getting, people. Figure it out.

secularprolife.org said...

'unborn child's right to her body.'

.................................
There is no body until I make it out of my flesh and pain. I will decide when and if to do that. YOU will decide nothing.

secularprolife.org said...

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?
Ayn Rand
“Of Living Death”
The Voice of Reason, 58–59

secularprolife.org said...

**I'm opposed to killing anyone, be it through abortion, war, the death penalty, or any other method.**


Such as your spending spare money on cable TV and eating meat, rather than giving up tv, and being a vegetarian? Because by doing the former, rather than donating all your extra money to charity, you are starving 3rd world people to death.

secularprolife.org said...

**There are two lives involved in every pregnancy**

The same is true if a dialysis patient 'needs' your kidney for his 'very life'. As it is if you have a tapeworm in your intestine.

**failing to recognize that the unborn child's is her own is unscientific**



If the embryo cannot sustain it's own life, without parasitizing the mother, then the embryo does not and cannot own it's own life. At any rate, it's irrelevent, as is the fact that a dialysis patient's life is their own. That doesn't give them a right to your kidney.

secularprolife.org said...

**Depriving others of needed resources, be it money or a body they are physiologically bound to, is amoral. Hence my support for charities and my opposition to killing.**


So, you're claiming here that you live in a single room with several other people, live on a diet of rice, potatoes, and other staples, have no TV, and have donated all the money you might have spent on a larger dwelling, meat, and entertainment to charity, and also have only one lung and one kidney.


Otherwise you're full of shit

secularprolife.org said...

Actually, you are demonstrably full of shit. Either you have a computer, which you don't need for your very life, and have spent money on that could have been spent buying food for people, or else you are sitting on your ass at the public library using THEIR computer, when you could have been using that time to work and donate the money you earned to buy food for people.

secularprolife.org said...

**If you believe that it should be legal to kill millions in order to save a few,**

Which pretty much describes the use of antibiotic and insecticides.

** I will not support the full-scale devaluation of unborn or born lives.**



Refusing to give zygotes an unrealistic inflated value that your sad feelies imagine they should have does not constitute 'devaluing' them no matter how sad you are about it.

secularprolife.org said...

**The destruction of all life is unconstitutional.**


Does Tyson Chicken know about this?

secularprolife.org said...

Handwaving. You are deliberately not addressing the issue.

secularprolife.org said...

I have no respect for people who handwave and refuse to answer the hard questions, and if you think anyone with an mental age over 10 does, you are delusional.

secularprolife.org said...

**62,500 girls.**


Does gender convey rights?


If so, do female fish have rights?


If not, why doesn't the unfertilized egg have rights, other than it being inconvenient to you?

secularprolife.org said...

**One can support both helping pregnant women and making the destruction of unborn life illegal.**


Which is utter nonsense in the real world. You can mentally 'support' two contradictory things, but in the real world you CANNOT enact both of them. You MUST choose which of them you are actually going to enact, making your supposed 'support' for the other option mere sad feelies.

secularprolife.org said...

** I simply disagreed with your argument that the right to one's body extends to ending someone's life.**


Do you believe people should be forced to donate kidneys? Or is it only women who shouldn't have a right to their bodies?

secularprolife.org said...

**My main point is that individual liberty extends only so far as one is not jeopardizing another's life.**


So, we should probably sell your computer and donate the money to charity for starving children?

secularprolife.org said...

YOUR argument:

"I want to keep my wallet, which 3rd world children are nutritionally dependent on for myself." = GOOD.

"Others want to keep their body for themselves" = EVIL



Why is your right to your wallet more sacred than other people's right to their own bodies?

secularprolife.org said...

**But yeah, I help people. I help people all the time. I could be helping people right now. But I'm wasting my time trying to talk to you.**



Make up your mind? Are you helping people all the time? Or are you talking to us right now? If you are talking to us right now, you aren't helping people all the time. And by your claimed standards, that makes you immoral.


Why do other people have to abide by your proclaimed moral standards while you get to violate them for your own enjoyment?

secularprolife.org said...

Evasion. And lies. If you are spending money on a computer and internet service, rather than donating it to charity, you are placing a monetary value on lives, and also lying about it.

secularprolife.org said...

I'm glad someone else noticed.

secularprolife.org said...

**Your second argument essentially boils down to shut up and give me everything you have.**


So? If you don't place a monetary value on lives, why would you object to that course of action?


Or is what you mean is that you don't actually calculate exactly how much money it costs to keep someone alive, but you value your own pocketbook more than all those 'very lives' and feel sanctimonious because you don't know the exact numerical amount?

secularprolife.org said...

**And killing unborn children doesn't cause them misery?**


Can you explain how something without a functional brain is capable of experiencing misery?


Or is what you mean is that YOU experience misery, and project it onto something not capable of feeling it?


A psychiatrist can probably help you with that.

secularprolife.org said...

**Many young people and consistent life ethicists have taken it upon themselves to educate people on the dangers of all forms of violence.**



Uh huh. So if Charles Manson broke out of prison, dragged a 5 year old girl into your house, and proceeded to torture her, even if you had a gun in your pocket you'd simply sit there and whimper, because of 'the dangers of all forms of violence'?


You are not fit to survive, much less tell others how to survive.


You're also a liar, since you want to pass laws to have things your way, and laws are ultimately enforced at the point of a gun. But I suppose you will sit there and feel holy, because it is the government using the violence on your behalf, rather than getting your own precious lily-white hands dirty with guns and blood.

secularprolife.org said...

Slavery means not having autonomy over your body.If you are anti -abortion(anti-autonomy),yes you are a proponent of slavery.

secularprolife.org said...

I just want to say that SPL has some of the more thoughtful abortion opponents on the net. Whenever I visit any of the major news magazines, the majority of the pro life arguments are "pro choicers are baby killing nazi scum"

Yeah. I am having a "discussion" with one such intellectual now. Every rebuttal is a reminder that I am allied with Hitler, as a pro choicer.

secularprolife.org said...

There is no such thing as a right to life.There is the right to not be unjusitfy killed.But if the fetus infringes on mother body autonomy,so the mother is justified in killing the fetus.

secularprolife.org said...

You should read some of Ann Morgan's comments then....

secularprolife.org said...

Scabby Johnson is a two-faced liar and abandoned the same women she was supposed ot be helping.

secularprolife.org said...

That's called respite care, and I have nothing but good things to say about that, for ALL 24/7 caregivers. They need some down time to care for their own needs.

secularprolife.org said...

Except, it ain't necessarily true, is it? I would do all I could to help a woman make any choice she wanted, whether it was to end a pregnancy, keep a pregnancy, or not get pregnant to begin with.

secularprolife.org said...

Why? She shares too many of your ideas.

secularprolife.org said...

Yep. It's a gift, not an obligation.
You know, I do wonder how the details outlined at L4L would work in the real world...


Say that the USA is now a libertarian fantasy. The non-aggression principle = law


So, you can't evict a widdle embwyo under any circumstances, and if you are kidnapped and hooked up to a dialysis patient, it would have to be illegal for you to disconnect yourself, would it not? I mean, that would be a crime...


So, say technology does exist whereby a dialysis patient *can* be kept alive simply by hooking you up to their bodies through this new technology. So if my buddy is dying, I can simply kidnap you, hook you up to him in a room...and if you unhook yourself, YOU are the criminal. As long as he is an unwitting participant, he is not actually actively aggressing against you, and thus for you to unhook yourself against an innocent party = an act of aggression = you go to jail.


Yeah. That kind of scenario would be sure be abused a lot, wouldn't it?

secularprolife.org said...

Innocence is irrelevant. Unwillingly remaining hooked up to another for their benefit IS an act of aggression. The use of lethal force would be justified. A point lost upon them completely.

secularprolife.org said...

Nope. She is rude and supports the killing of unborn children.

secularprolife.org said...

That is how I feel.

secularprolife.org said...

Wow. Want a little bigotry to go with your hate?

secularprolife.org said...

Is that not the goal of the evangelicals who believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen?


I mean, evangelicals do NOT support any legislation that will help pregnant women in the workplace, and in fact, pro life leaders such as Pat Robertson and evangelical GOP congressmen go on at length about how single mothers are destroying America.


Also, have you not heard of the purity movement? The entire movement, of which the Duggars are a part, is centred around how women are the de facto property of men, and how it is their job to breed for God.

secularprolife.org said...

There are no unborn children. And I will be as rude as I like to someone who advocates killing innocent men for doing things they 'can't help' while the pwecious embwyo gets a pass.

secularprolife.org said...

**The destruction of all life is unacceptable,**


Then you're going to have a real big problem living in the universe, because the destruction of life is pretty much inevitable. Starting with the majority of precious zygotes failing to implant, and continuing with most children dying before age 5 until very recently in history, and even now, only in luckier countries.


I'd recommend LSD as a means of blotting out reality, if this is 'unacceptable' to you.

secularprolife.org said...

**The non-aggression principle**


Floid, what the 'Non-Aggression Principal' means is the non INITIATION of force. Should someone else initiate force against you FIRST, acting to defend yourself is entirely acceptable to a Libertarian.


The law in the US today is actually the opposite of what a Libertarian would believe, as increasingly, offensive force is legal, but defending yourself is illegal.

secularprolife.org said...

**And if you are more concerned about your right to your body than other people's lives, then you certainly have no room to talk.**



He has PLENTY of room to talk, because he is not a hypocrite. He freely admits that his, or anyone's right to their own body is more important than someone else's 'need' to use that body for their 'very lives'.


YOU, on the other hand, ARE a provable liar, because you repeatedly insist that nothing is more important than 'very lives', that you are doing 'everything possible' to save all the 'very lives' you can, and that you don't place a monetary value on this. Which is provable crap, because you still own a computer that you could have sold and given the money to charity, as well as having an ISP that you are spending money on. Also, you are spending time talking on this board, which is time you COULD be spending saving people's 'very lives', so you are NOT doing 'everything possible' to save all the 'very lives' you can. You are living a comfortable lifestyle, while demanding unlimitted sacrifices from others to cater to your sad feelies.

secularprolife.org said...

So, if you were being raped and the only way to get the attacker off of you was to kill him would you ask him first if he was innocent (mind controlled) and then let him rape you if he was?

secularprolife.org said...

You're handwaving again to try and justify yourself. The scenario I proposed was one in which you ALREADY KNEW the rapist had a computer chip controlling his brain, and you specifically stated numerous times that you would kill him, despite that fact. Stop trying to backpedal and change the scenario.

secularprolife.org said...

Wouldn't you if that was the only way to stop him?

secularprolife.org said...

Assuming I knew that he had a computer chip in his brain, no, myintx, I would NOT kill him.


Unlike you, I actually value human lives for reasons other than their (gasp) precious unique DNA and widdle vulnerable cuteness, and don't regard the sanctity of my genitals as a sufficient reason to kill someone who can't help their actions.


This might surprise you, but unless there was something very wrong (medically) with me or with an unborn child, I personally wouldn't get an abortion, either.


But my choice in both cases is irrelevent. Tolerating an invasion of my body, even from someone who 'can't help it' is a pure gift on my part, not a right on their part, nor can I obligate others to tolerate such a thing merely because I would


You, however, are a spoiled hypocrite, because you keep weeping over how the widdle embwyo should get a pass because 'can't help it', while you would kill the mind controlled rapist, KNOWING he was mind controlled. That being the case, you cannot validly claim 'can't help it' as being your great moral principle. Your morals are based on cuteness and who happens to be offending your precious genitals.

secularprolife.org said...

If I was being raped by anyone (mind controlled or not), I would try anything I could do to get away from him. The last resort would be killing and it wouldn't make a difference whether he was mind controlled or not. I don't believe that you would let him rape you if he was mind controlled but wouldn't if he wasnt. Not buying it for a second. If you fight a rapist they typically fight back to a point where your life is endangered. You're telling me you wouldn't fight at all? wouldn't even scratch him to try to get away? Again, not buying it.


No one should have a 'choice' to kill an unborn child. Your comparison of an unborn child to a 'mind controlled rapist' is sickening and laughable.

secularprolife.org said...

**The last resort would be killing and it wouldn't make a difference whether he was mind controlled or not.**

So, in other words, you are now flat out admitting that 'can't help it' does not actually get you a pass, and your sanctimonious morality is based on cuteness.

** I don't believe that you would let him rape you if he was mind controlled but wouldn't if he wasnt.**

Newsflash here - simply because you are an immature spoiled bitch who demands that everyone else tolerate everything because of your sad feelies, while you yourself are willing to tolerate absolutely nothing does not mean that everyone else in the world is equally spoiled and hypocritical. Your inability to conceive of someone with real morality does not mean that such people do not exist

**You're telling me you wouldn't fight at all? wouldn't even scratch him to try to get away? Again, not buying it.**

Since calling me a 'liar' in this matter is not something you can accurately do unless you can read my mind, that is not a statement you can make unless you have psychic powers. Do you have psychic powers? Have they been verified by the amazing Randi?

**Your comparison of an unborn child to a 'mind controlled rapist' is sickening and laughable.**



The fact that my comparison exposes you as a spoiled brat whose real basis for morality is cuteness and demands everyone else tolerate everything for your sad feelies, while you will kill someone rather than put up with slight discomfort for 9 short minutes does not make my comparison sickening and laughable.

secularprolife.org said...

** If you fight a rapist they typically fight back to a point where your life is endangered. **


btw, your attempt to change my scenario from rape to assault and attempted murder has been noted. Trying to change the scenario is a logical fallacy, but typical of sad feelie forced gestationers such as youself.

secularprolife.org said...

btw, your killing of innocent human beings with a functioning brain, and capable of experiencing real pain and fear for their lives, while sobbing over the imaginary distress of brainless embryoes, simply because they are cute, then trying to claim that you have the moral high ground, is sickening and laughable.

secularprolife.org said...

btw, your killing of innocent human beings with a functioning brain, and capable of experiencing real pain and fear for their lives, while sobbing over the imaginary distress of brainless embryoes, simply because they are cute, then trying to claim that you have the moral high ground, is sickening and laughable..

secularprolife.org said...

I agree with this (not necessarily in regards to abortion, but overall). Frankly, I seriously hope that humans will eventually be able to bend nature in ways which you yourself might not even imagine right now.

secularprolife.org said...

Out of curiosity: what if one would save one adult human being over 2+ human infants? Would you consider such a position to be acceptable or disgusting/repulsive?

secularprolife.org said...

So, if you kill someone in their sleep and they suffer no 'distress', that's OK? Doesn't matter if there is distress for the one being killed, it's wrong to kill a human being that has done nothing wrong.




The fact that you support the killing of about 1 million unborn children a year in this country alone is what is sickening.

secularprolife.org said...

You helped bring an interesting thought into my mind: Do body parts outside of the head really mean that much (*other* than in terms of survival, obviously)? After all, it appears that head transplants onto other bodies is possible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_transplant

Thus, it appears that, at least theoretically, all body parts outside of one's head *can* also be replaced.

secularprolife.org said...

"including the right to determine the trajectory of her own life, and not have that plan derailed by a random biological occurrence."

Do you also support males' right to determine the trajectory of their own lives, and not to have their life plans get derailed by a random biological occurrence?

secularprolife.org said...

I disagree as well, and take some exception to the "Right wing" inclusion. Right and left indicate economic ideals, not social ones. There are plenty of hard right libertarians who are pro-choice. "Mr.Conservative" Barry Goldwater was pro-choice. As for evangelicals dominating the movement, BULLSHIT, the faith based pro-life movement and the secular pro-life movement are not the same group. One cannot dominate the other. One is easier to defame, so it is the target of most of the pro-choice arguments, but I probably disagree with more of the faith based pro-life beliefs than you do. I view the death penalty, violence and war as the biggest issues in the secular pro-life argument, and couldn't disagree with the typical faith based pro-lifers more on those issues.

secularprolife.org said...

Social conservatives merged with economic conservatives in the 1970s. There was a time when evangelicals *and* the fiscal conservatives were pro-choice, as fiscal conservatives didn't want more welfare babies to be born. and evangelicals didn't think that zygotes were babies - that was the job for the RCC.

Then everything changed after RvW, and it is NO secret that the GOP is the part that opposes abortion, and that pro-life tea party evangelicals overwhelming vote pro-life, and that they oppose socialism, along with their fiscal conservative bros:

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/03/when-evangelicals-were-pro-choice/


And it's also no secret that pro life evangelicals are overwhelmingly anti-gay, in fact, they come here to talk about how marriage is 'designed' to be between a man and a woman only, since the 'purpose' of marriage is procreation. BTW, i recently learned that the RCC does not consider a marriage of an impotent man and woman to be valid, because if penetration can't occur, there can be no child, however, a marriage of infertile couples is acceptable, because a dick can go into a vagina. And of course, gays are absolutely exempt, because marriage and sex were not 'designed' for dicks to go into butts, mouths or ears!

secularprolife.org said...

Evangelicals are a large group, and not all of them believe what you imply.


Of course not. And not all republicans are pro-life etc etc


But for the most part, when you think of evangelicals, and of the leaders of the pro-life and anti-gay movements, you see people like the Duggars, and Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Lindsay Graham, Bryan Fischer, and all of the other influential and famous evangelical pastors who say that abortion and gays are why ISIS, 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina all happened.



If there is a majority of evangelicals who are socialist, pro-choice and pro-gay, I'd love to hear from them.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 370   Newer› Newest»