Why Pro-Life Advocates Are Not Responsible for the Planned Parenthood Shooting

Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence.

Photo credit: Colorado Springs Police Department

Photo credit: Colorado Springs Police Department

Last Friday a 57-year old armed man named Robert Lewis Dear walked into a Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs and opened fire. He barricaded himself inside for hours, and before surrendering himself to police he killed three people and wounded nine more.

Ben Domenech at The Federalist summarized many of the weird things that have already come out about Dear:

As is so often the case in these circumstances, Dear is described by neighbors as an odd loner, who avoided eye contact and spoke unintelligibly. In South Carolina, his previous residence, he had been arrested after hiding in the bushes and peeping into his neighbor’s house. He shot a neighbor’s dog with a pellet gun and threatened him with bodily harm. In Colorado, he lived off the grid in a trailer, on a five-acre plot of land he apparently purchased for $6,000 in 2014. This followed a series of cabins and trailers — without electricity or running water — that he stayed in after his divorce in 2000.

Dear has no history of affiliation with the Republican Party or pro-life groups or politicians.

While we don’t yet know very many details about his initial questioning by police, it was leaked that he said something about “no more baby parts” at some point. This is a clear reference to the Center for Medical Progress’ (CMP) undercover videos that have provided evidence that Planned Parenthood illegally sells body parts from the babies they kill in abortion. Planned Parenthood and others are claiming or implying that pro-life advocates are partially to blame for the shooting because we have been saying that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.

Are pro-life advocates culpable for the shooting? By culpable I don’t mean “the only person to blame,” or even “the primary person to blame.” I also don’t mean “ought to be legally prosecuted.” By culpable I mean “morally blameworthy for their actions.” Whether pro-life advocates are culpable for the recent shooting depends entirely on what it means to incite violence. While I will not answer every possible question about what circumstances could make one culpable, I will argue that there are two extreme ways of thinking about culpability that we should avoid. I will also argue that the right way to determine if a statement incites violence is to examine the statement, not merely whether or not it was credited for violence.

Let’s start by examining four fictional cases.

What We Can Learn from Obvious Cases

Case 1 (The Pastor): A pro-life pastor says in a sermon that abortion kills babies and hurts women, so the church needs to be more intentional about loving people that have been affected by abortion. A deeply mentally ill person listens to the sermon and decides that if doctors kill babies in abortion, then the doctors deserve to be killed, so he goes into a clinic and shoots and kills an abortion practitioner. The murderer says that after listening to the sermon, he felt he had to kill “one of the baby-killers.” Is the pro-life pastor culpable? I think not.

Case 2 (The Activist): An anti-abortion activist says in a speech that doctors who perform abortions might as well be Adolf Hitler. He goes on to say that if it was legal to declare open season on the whole lot of them, he’d go hunting full-time, and maybe some people more courageous than he should do just that. “After all,” he says, “it would have been justified to kill Hitler.” There’s a young man at the speech that traveled a long way to get there. He has been following this activist for years and deeply admires him. He gets tired of feeling like he can’t do anything to stop abortion, so he decides to do what his hero told him is courageous. He stalks an abortion practitioner, follows him to his house, and shoots and kills him. The murderer publicly thanks the anti-abortion activist for giving him the guidance he needed. Is the anti-abortion activist culpable? I think so.

Case 3 (The Blogger): A pro-choice blogger writes that pro-lifers are hurting women by restricting their rights, and that they need to be taught a lesson on what compassion means. A deeply mentally ill reader skims the article and hones in on the phrase “they need to be taught a lesson.” He decides to go teach them a lesson. He goes to the office of a well-known pro-life organization and shoots and kills a pro-life activist. The murderer says that when he read the article and he saw the phrase “they need to be taught a lesson,” he was filled with rage, so he had to go kill someone. Is the pro-choice blogger culpable? I think not.

Case 4 (The Professor): A pro-choice professor says in her women’s studies class that pro-life people are the modern day moral equivalent of slave-owners. An astute student points out that it would have been moral for a slave to kill their owner in order to escape, and asks if it would be moral to kill pro-lifers to stop them from enslaving women. The professor says, “Of course it would be. If only some brave students had the courage to do just that…” Several of the students get together, build a bomb, and plant it at a pro-life pregnancy resource center, killing the receptionist. The murderers say their professor persuaded them that they should kill pro-lifers. Is the pro-choice professor culpable? I think so.

An extremely broad understanding of culpability and inciting violence might consider the people in all four cases (the Pastor, the Activist, the Blogger, and the Professor) to be culpable. This seems wrong because it is obvious that in Case 1 and Case 3 the pastor and blogger are not culpable for the murder.

An extremely narrow understanding of culpability and inciting violence might consider none of the four people to be culpable. This also seems wrong because it is obvious that in Case 2 and Case 4 the activist and professor are culpable for the murder.

We need an understanding of how culpability works that explains why there is culpability in Cases 2 and 4, but not in Cases 1 and 3. The only solution is to examine what the individuals said, and whether the leap from their statement to the act of violence is a reasonable leap.

There can be logical reactions to statements and completely off-base reactions to statements. A person who makes a statement is not culpable for completely off-base reactions, he is culpable for logical reactions. The same is true of emotional responses. I have a friend that once said “Emotions are never wrong. Whatever emotional response you have in a given moment is justified.” The problem with that is that I could inappropriately became furious with her for merely frowning at me, and in her worldview she would be responsible for my anger. Similarly, if I make a statement that is not actually violence inciting, I am not culpable if someone later gets violent and blames me for it. If you want to know if a person incited violence, you need to look further than whether a murderer says they did. You have to look at their message. Does the message actually encourage violence? In Case 1 (the Pastor) and Case 3 (the Blogger), the message did not encourage violence, so the pastor and blogger are not culpable.

The four hypothetical cases I used are intentionally obvious cases. Unfortunately, real world cases are less obvious. Let’s examine two real world cases.

How Should We Think About Harder, Non-Fictional Cases?

Case 5 (Center for Medical Progress): The Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos accusing high-ranking Planned Parenthood staff of breaking the law, including “using partial-birth abortions to sell baby parts” and “haggling over payments for intact fetal specimens and offering to use a “less crunchy technique.” CMP denounced Planned Parenthood as a criminal enterprise and lead the pro-life movement in declaring that Planned Parenthood sells baby parts. On November 27, 2015, a mentally disturbed man named Robert Lewis Dear walked into a Colorado Planned Parenthood and killed two civilians and a police officer. Is CMP culpable?

Case 6 (Southern Poverty Law Center): The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) lists the Family Research Council (FRC) on their list of “Extremist Groups and puts the FRC office on their map of “active hate groups.” On August 15, 2012, a man named Floyd Lee Corkins II bought 100 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches and then walked into FRC’s office and opened fire. A security guard subdued him despite being shot. Corkins plan was to kill as many people as possible and then to smear the sandwiches on their faces as a political statement.

This is a 19-second video of Corkins’ FBI interrogation, where he answers the question of how he knew about FRC’s office:

It was a uh, Southern Poverty Law, uh anti-gay groups. I found them online. I did a little bit of research, went to the website, stuff like that.

It is believed that if the security guard had not succeeded in stopping Corkins, he would have succeeded in killing dozens of people. Is SPLC culpable?

If you have a really broad understanding of inciting violence, you can consider the Center for Medical Progress culpable for the recent shooting, but you will also have to consider the Southern Poverty Law Center (and, to a lesser extent, the many gay rights groups that condemned Chick-Fil-A) culpable for Floyd Lee Corkins’ attack on FRC (thanks to Robert George for pointing out this case). If you want to blame pro-lifers for the recent shooting, go ahead, as long as you’re willing to be consistent.

It seems like there is something deeply problematic with that view of what “inciting violence” is. If a non-violent statement becomes transformed into a violent statement the second a crazy person shoots someone and mentions you, the world would be an absurd place. It would be a world where literally any statement can be a violence-inciting statement; you just need a mentally ill person to act violently and then blame you for it. This would be a world where we cannot condemn any kind of evil or injustice because any statement condemning anything could make us culpable for a murder if we stated our opinion openly and a crazy person happened to be present. As David French said, “To clamp down on speech (or even self-censor) for fear of bitter hermits and angry lunatics is absurd.”

Either both organizations are culpable in Cases 5 and 6, or neither of them are. My view is that neither CMP nor SPLC is culpable. Violence was a completely unreasonable (not to mention completely evil) response to their messages in both cases. It is understandable for people on either side of the issue of abortion to ask honest questions about whether violence is an appropriate response, but only an insane person or an extremely stupid sane person would jump from that philosophical question to murder.

I have been involved in pro-life ministry either vocationally or as a volunteer for fifteen years. I have been asked more than a dozen times by well-intentioned, peaceful pro-life people why it is not justified to shoot abortion practitioners, given that they are killing human beings. I consider it a natural, understandable question, but no remotely reasonable person responds to such a question by killing people. Remotely reasonable people ask other people with more understanding to help them think well. Remotely reasonable people notice that only a ridiculously tiny percentage of anti-abortion people act violently, so they pause and ask trustworthy people if they should do something so drastic.

It is Never Justified to Murder Abortion Practitioners

As I have told numerous people before, abortion is analogous to the Holocaust in some ways (for instance, the vast number of innocents who have been killed) and disanalogous in other ways (for instance, who is doing the killing and what kind of government existed at the time). When you’re in a war zone, it’s reasonable to act violently to protect innocent life. We are not in a war zone. My brother Josh Brahm wrote a blog post two years ago where he articulated well why it is not justified to use violence against abortion practitioners. With his permission, I’m including a lengthy quotation from his piece:

There are several morally relevant differences between modern-day America and Nazi Germany, where Dietrich Bonhoeffer plotted to kill Hitler. I’m going to name one critical difference below, and I believe it is a sufficient reason to demonstrate that it is not only morally wrong for American pro-lifers to kill abortionists, but it’s even wrong to kidnap people.

America is not a despotic nation.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a despot as “a ruler who has total power and who often uses that power in cruel and unfair ways.” Another definition is “a ruler with absolute power and authority.”

Regardless of the frustrations you may feel with how much power President Obama has and former President George W. Bush had, America has clearly not transitioned into despotism. We still have representatives in congress. We still have a Supreme Court. We still have freedom of speech. (For the most part.) We still have freedom of the press. (For the most part.)

As long as America is not lead by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means.

Could the philosophers who read my blog create a thought-experiment that forces me to bite the bullet and say that maybe in a circumstance where X, Y and Z are true that it would be morally permissible to start a civil war over abortion? Perhaps, but that thought-experiment will by necessity look REALLY different than America in 2013 does.

“But we’re killing people, Josh! Don’t you get that?!”

Yes, I believe people are being legally killed in our country, yet I do not think that makes America comparable in ALL the morally relevant ways to Nazi Germany. Thus, even IF Bonhoeffer was justified in his plan to assassinate Hitler, that would mean literally NOTHING for pro-life activists in America until our political situation was much more comparable to Bonhoeffer’s.

This is one of the reasons that it is morally wrong to kill abortionists. Scott Roeder, the man who killed late-term abortionist George Tiller, may have intended to do good, but he was absolutely wrong when he became a vigilante and murdered George Tiller. Killing abortionists is certainly not justified until the political environment is a despotism and every other method of saving lives has been tried, and even then it wouldn’t be obvious that killing abortionists is justified. We have a long way to go before I believe a discussion can even begin comparing our situation with Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s.

You could also understand Josh’s argument by thinking in terms of Just War Theory. An extremely important part of Just War Theory is the idea that in order for a war to be just, it has to be the “last resort.” Even if you have just cause, right intentions, etc., you cannot go to war if you have an alternative course of action. We are in an extremely odd country where people are legally allowed to kill innocent babies, and what’s even odder is that millions of citizens believe it is moral to kill babies. Violence must be used only as a last resort, and there are other (not to mention, more effective) courses of action we can take. We can persuade people that the law needs to change, and we don’t live in a dictatorship where we can’t change the law. It is grossly immoral to kill born human beings when it is not absolutely necessary to do so, just like it is grossly immoral to kill unborn human beings when it is not absolutely necessary to do so.

Another important criterion of Just War Theory is “probability of success.” Due to how destructive war is, if you don’t have good reason to believe you have a high likelihood of being successful, it is not just to go to war. The likelihood of any serious good being done from killing abortion practitioners is virtually zero. Killing a given abortion practitioner does not end abortion. On the contrary, now it will be harder to end abortion. More babies will die because of what Robert Lewis Dear did last week.

It is clearly immoral to kill abortion practitioners, but wondering “why” is common and understandable. Given that, all pro-life advocates should denounce violence towards abortion practitioners to avoid any possible misunderstanding. I don’t think they’re culpable for murder if they don’t, because remotely reasonable people should know better. But being very clear about why it is evil to kill abortion practitioners is a worthwhile measure to reduce the tiny likelihood of a not remotely reasonable person acting violently.

In the next few weeks as you read and listen to what people say about this horrific attack, you should take careful note of untrustworthy people. Anyone that inconsistently attempts to silence their opposition in the wake of a tragedy should be distrusted in the future. This includes any pro-choice advocate that blames the recent attack on pro-lifers, but does not apply the same standard when a conservative group is attacked. It is opportunistic, ghoulish, and despicable. God forbid, if a pro-life organization is ever attacked, I hope the pro-life movement will have the moral fortitude and decency to restrain themselves from attempting to silence people who disagree with us.

 

Please share this article!

  • Tweet: Why Pro-Life Advocates Are Not Responsible for the Planned Parenthood Shooting
  • Tweet: Whether pro-life advocates are culpable for the recent shooting depends entirely on what it means to incite violence.

The post “Why Pro-Life Advocates Are Not Responsible for the Planned Parenthood Shooting” originally appeared at the Equal Rights Institute blogClick here to subscribe via email and get exclusive access to a FREE MP3 of Josh Brahm’s speech, “Nine Faulty Pro-Life Arguments and Tactics.”

The preceding post is the property of Timothy Brahm (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public,) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of Josh Brahm unless the post was written by a co-blogger or guest, and the content is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (Timothy Brahm) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show only the first paragraph on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Director of Training

Timothy Brahm is the Director of Training at Equal Rights Institute. He is interested in helping pro-life and pro-choice people to have better dialogues about abortion through 1) taking care to understand what the other person means, 2) using more carefully-constructed arguments, and 3) treating each other with care and respect. He graduated from Biola University with a B.A. in philosophy and is a perpetual member of the Torrey Honors Institute.

Please note: The goal of the comments section on this blog is simply and unambiguously to promote productive dialogue. We reserve the right to delete comments that are snarky, disrespectful, flagrantly uncharitable, offensive, or off-topic. If in doubt, read our Comments Policy.

  • Guest

    It’s even less clear that Bonhoeffer would have been justified had he tried to take out an unarmed S.S. officer in his church (which would be much more analogous to what Scott Roeder did).

  • Guest
  • I think an important line to draw is between condemning an unjust practice, and using dehumanizing or demonizing language against the people engaged in the practice. As pro-lifers, we know that some kinds of language make it easier to persuade people that it’s acceptable to kill this or that group of human beings. We should never use that kind of language ourselves, and should challenge other purported pro-lifers who do use it.

    • This is a good point. We have some posts on language and labels in the abortion debate here: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/tag/languagelabels/

      I think you would enjoy them. :)

      • wiffle

        Interesting read. I think what’s missing for me is context.

        I have talked with people whom I would accurately describe as pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Most fence sitters I would call pro-choice. I think it’s unwise and inaccurate to call abortion advocates anything for what they are. I also would not concede abortionist for the reason. I will not put those who make a living killing in the same category as a practioner whose profession it is healing for the sake of politeness. It is inaccurate and unfair to real medical practioners.

        So I’ll definitely give you some softer terminology in the right context, but it has to be that and not sacrifice the truth on feel good vibes. :(

        • Crystal

          What terms would you use, then? Because I don’t want to cause unnecessary offence when I’m trying to reach out to or have a civil conversation with someone but at the same time I can’t call it a choice, or even soften the language. I presently use “advocates for legal abortion” but do you personally think that’s too soft?

          • wiffle

            Anytime you add syllables in the English language, you soften your tone and make it more formal. I’d use the word that fit the context, really. If article was for general publication/audience I’d probably use pro-choice. If it were either address to abortion advocates or a pro-life site, I might use pro-abortion or abortion advocate. In comments like this, I would use pro-abort or pro-abortion because those conversations are a bit strange and tinged from my point of view. On the hand, I do my level best to avoid them, too.

    • Crystal

      Upvote.

    • Cynical_Meliorist

      You get my upvote based solely on your picture, as well as having a reasonable point of view.

  • ReidDA

    Did/Does SPLC have board members who have justified the killing of abortion doctors like CMP does?

    • Guest

      One of CMP’s board members said that he thinks abortion should be a capital crime. He has repeatedly condemned vigilantism, and nobody associated with CMP has ever advocated for it. I don’t see how this is relevant though, because he made that statement in a book most people have never heard of (not in any of the widely circulated videos that people are trying to blame for this rampage).

      • Thinking abortion should be a capital crime (presumably in which abortionists would be given due process of law) =/= justifying the vigilante killing of abortion doctors.

        • Crystal

          I want to thank you for taking me up on my offer. I know we haven’t spoken much to each other but I would consider us friends despite that and I hope you feel the same way.

          I have been giving serious thought to Bair’s questions and I am going to give her the same answer I will give you, as I believe you would have read our back-and-forth on this question:

          The PL movement isn’t the only movement that prefers peace to violence.

          Let’s take a look at a few other movements in history.

          William Wilberforce:

          WW sought to abolish slavery in England. Because he was a politician he had a serious advantage in ensuring that the laws would be passed that he wanted. He fought for *years* to make the slave trade, then slavery illegal. Never once did he or his fellow abolitionists advocate for violence in the form of blowing up the slave ships or shooting all the slave traders throughout England. Because of his efforts England peacefully outlawed slavery in the early part of the 19th century. Watch Amazing Grace and other documentaries to learn more about his work.

          Alice Paul:

          AP was a feminist who fought for the right of women to vote throughout all of America. She and her fellow suffragettes were more radical than the older ones but both sets of suffragettes condemned the kind of violence that some in England were committing. She said “I don’t consider myself above the law in any circumstance”. As she felt that the older suffragettes were too weak and incremental she and her fellow suffragettes broke away to form a new group, which stood campaigning peacefully with signs outside President Wilson’s office. They were falsely charged and put in prison, one by one, but none because of violence AFAIK. Eventually the President pardoned them and they were released, and women got the vote. Not once did I see AP and her friends committing violence, or campaigning for its use. If you want to watch a drama about AP’s work you can view Iron-Jawed Angels or several documentaries dealing with the subject.

          Martin Luther King, Jr.

          MLK was an Afro-American pastor who lived during the 1960s. He himself had suffered the disgrace of segregation, the KKK, and other such indignities. He rose to prominence in the Afro Civil Rights Movement and nearly single-handedly led the charge to defeat discrimination against nonwhite people. He organised his followers onto peaceful marches and they held rallies fighting for their rights. Although he recognised that rioting was the language of the oppressed he did not condone the black people using violence to fight against white privilege and oppression. He was shot dead by an attacker using the racial atmosphere to justify his violent hatred. To learn more about MLK Jr I recommend Selma and Boycott, plus documentaries.

          These three people and their friends helped make slavery, suppression against women, and anti-nonwhite discrimination illegal in England and the United States. None of them advocated for violence but rather for peace. They sought legal means to ensure that they would get what they wanted, and refused to demonise their opponents, yet were not willing to compromise on what they wanted and therefore achieved their goals. We have people like them to thank for this world being a better place to live. If people who believe that prolifers are inconsistent by fighting for peace and would therefore be silently condoning nazism and slavery, think again. Because history has proved that peace in a democratic society is the best means of achieving help for the oppressed. Yet if such people are right, WW was pro-slavery through not shooting slave traders; AP was anti-feminist by refusing to barge into the President’s office, hold a gun to his head, and demand the vote for women; and MLK Jr’s words about peace and tolerance were just a bunch of hogwash because deep down he wanted blacks to stay “in their place”. Such assertions are insulting on the characters of those who fought peacefully for what was right. I agree that the PL movement needs significant reform in language in that we shouldn’t demonise our opponents, and in violence, but at the same time being peaceful does not mean we are being best buddies with Hitler and Jefferson Davis.

          People lie about abortion and what it is. We are doing it *somewhat* right in this way – we are changing people’s minds, exposing wickedness to the public mind, and changing hearts and minds through stirring up public outrage which will eventually pass into laws and moral reforms. What I have described is one good way among many nonviolent ways to handle the situation while we are living in a free, peaceful society.

          Just my two cents.

        • Crystal

          You have permission to use my paragraph if you will find it helpful :)

        • Guest

          Precisely my point.

        • My response was a follow-up to yours (and a response to Reid), not a response to you. Sorry for the confusion. :)

    • LoveTheLeast8

      That is factually incorrect. CMP does not a board member with such views.

  • Thanks for all the thinking of both of you.

    I would like to say a few things, but I’m under a lot of time pressure right now, so you will be partially spared. Here is what I can type (or copy and paste) in the time that I have:

    1. It seems to me that similarly to the way you can argue, “Scott Roeder . . . may have intended to do good, but he was absolutely wrong,” I could argue, “The US has an impressive-seeming constitution and yes, it is theoretically possible to change unjust laws, but all the workings of power and the molding of public opinion, the ‘manufacture of consent,’ are a much deeper subject, and those glittery democratic institutions are of little comfort to the babies.”

    2. Under the earlier blog post you have linked to, I had commented —

    “Thanks for your post.

    As long as America is not [led] by a despot who changes our entire system of government, there are other ways to save lives and end abortion without using violence or other illegal or fear-inducing tactics like kidnapping. And that matters. If we can end abortion by non-violent means, then we are morally obligated to pursue those non-violent means.

    “If many unborn lives could be saved without violence by the pro-life American states seceding from the Union, shouldn’t they do that?”

    — and Josh Brahm had replied —

    Interesting question. I would need to be convinced that the pro-life states seceding would actually save more lives. It seems to me that it would have been easier to end slavery without the Southern states seceding. That’s partially why they seceded. I think it would be easier to abolish abortion without seceding, but I’m open to a good argument

    — and I had offered what seemed to me to be a good argument —

    “I don’t think of secession first and foremost in terms of lives saved in the short term. I think of it first and foremost in terms of moral integrity. If Kansans, for example, are pro-life and would be free to live, if they wished, under laws that protect unborn life, and opted not to do so, how much of their moral integrity on that issue would they preserve, and what message would they send to others?”

    I might also have raised a question about your “without the Southern states seceding” analogy, since at that time it was the states with the institution we consider wrong (slavery) that seceded, whereas I was not proposing that in the present the states with the institution we consider wrong (abortion) should secede.

    Anyway, I would still love a response about moral integrity.

  • If under a despotic political structure there is a horrible outcome such that every day we are face to face with person A and see that he is about to kill innocent persons B, C, D, E, F, G . . . , and under a nominally democratic or even genuinely democratic political structure there is a horrible outcome such that every day we are face to face with person A and see that he is about to kill innocent persons B, C, D, E, F, G . . . , I’m not convinced that it is morally permissible to kill person A in the one situation and not in the other. At least I wouldn’t say that that is “clearly” so. Certainly the difference in regime would be little consolation to persons B, C, D, E, F and G (though I don’t say that the lives of those people are the only factor to consider). Framed just in this simple way, it might even be morally obligatory to kill A in both situations.

    I think better arguments for not killing abortionists might be these:

    1. Your pragmatic argument — under the present situation, it backfires as a tactic.

    2. I don’t think that abortion in the US is as horrible as the Holocaust in Europe, even though the numbers have been bigger. a) The mindset has not been as evil. Some of the 60 million abortions have been totally justified. Some have been morally murky. The desperation of many women has reduced their culpability, and even that of some abortionists, far below that of the Nazis. And b) due to women’s bodily autonomy, the case for society’s right to intervene forcibly on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is not overwhelming but near the borderline in the first place; so the case for a vigilante’s right to intervene violently on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is still less strong.

    • uninvolved

      The political structure that doesn’t allow for peaceful means of reform is not pragmatic for social change.

      So I think the point about political structure and pragmatism basically go hand-in-hand.

      • Sorry, I don’t quite understand. What you appear to be saying is:

        My point killing abortionists backfires (my point about pragmatism)

        — and —

        my point any kind of political structure may possibly produce a horrible outcome that will justify drastic actions (my point about political structure)

        — basically go hand-in-hand.

        Is that what you’re saying?

        • uninvolved

          The reason violent reform is not pragmatic is because the political structure hasn’t closed down avenues of peaceful reform.

          If we were in a world where a regime has closed down all avenues of peaceful reform, then there is no alternative but to be violent. Pragmatism.

          • Now I understand you, thanks.

            I would agree that the formal structure has not closed down all avenues of peaceful reform of Roe v. Wade. But is structure the only consideration in regard to possible justification for violent reform? No structure is infallible. What if the individuals on the Supreme Court are incorrigible cases and clearly destined to remain that way for another 40 years or more? And then let’s imagine that those individuals not only sanction unrestricted abortion, but sanction Auschwitz all over again — all within the formal structure. It’s not impossible. The only thing that might make Auschwitz impossible would be the goodness of the citizenry, not any structure.

            Or if I’ve misunderstood your “closed down all avenues of peaceful reform” and you’re referring not only to the formal structure narrowly, but to the whole reigning situation, well, how soon do you see that situation improving?

            Please remember that I oppose violent reform for my own reasons, mentioned earlier.

            • uninvolved

              I never meant to say that political structure is the only justification for violent or peaceful reform. I agree with your points about pragmatism.

              I partly agree with your point about the holocaust being worse but I think in a different way. My concern with your reasons is this from another comment I made to you which you asked me to post here:

              I would say the abortion is fundamentally as bad as the holocaust.

              If you’re saying it’s not because of the intent on the part of the perpetrators then I would ask if the badness of the holocaust really turns on that by imagining a counterfactual where it’s true that the eradication of the “undesirables” in the holocaust would lead to a great many goods equal in worth to women’s reproductive freedom, and the Nazis intended that.

              I don’t see how that makes a difference.

              • First a clarification. Your writing —

                “a great many goods equal in worth to women’s reproductive freedom”

                — makes me think that this clarification may be necessary. When I wrote —

                “due to women’s bodily autonomy, the case for society’s right to intervene forcibly on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is not overwhelming but near the borderline in the first place; so the case for a vigilante’s right to intervene violently on behalf of B, C, D, E, F and G is still less strong”

                — did you understand me to mean —

                “the value/worth of women’s liberty gained through abortion (enabling them to do this or that with their lives) helps to offset morally the harm done by their killing their unborn children B, C, D, E, F and G”

                — ?

                That’s not what I meant. I meant more or less:

                “Though I advocate unborn child-protection laws, I do not do so without feeling seriously disturbed by the fact that preventing abortion forces a woman to undergo at least some temporary loss of physical well-being, some pain and some risk, all of which her bodily rights, on the one hand, tend to entitle her to avoid. I think that the case for society’s right to enact such laws (i.e., prevent abortion and save lives on the other hand) is not overwhelming but near the borderline. Moreover, it would be understandable, at least, if a doctor sympathized with a woman and wanted to perform an abortion. For all these reasons I think people should be much more reluctant to bump off numerous abortionists than they should have been to bump off Hitler. While killing anyone is problematic, in some circumstances it’s necessary; I think evil persons doing wrong are more easily expendable than good persons doing wrong.”

                And then, as I mentioned, there is the fact that under the present situation, killing abortionists backfires as a tactic.

                But, as also mentioned, I would NOT be completely, absolutely dissuaded from considering countenancing violence simply by the thought “On paper, the voters of the US (who nobody believes are right all the time in the first place) can elect a president and a Senate who, after waiting enough years for a certain justice or two to die off, can give us a pro-life Supreme Court.”

                One reason that even that possibility is only “on paper” is that we might find that a pro-life presidential candidate would also be a candidate likely to get us into World War 3 or ignore science in some disastrous way. But that would be another big topic of discussion that I don’t propose here.

                You have contended that “the intent on the part of the perpetrators” doesn’t make a difference;” now I have said, “While killing anyone is problematic, in some circumstances it’s necessary; I think evil persons doing wrong are more easily expendable than good persons doing wrong.” So maybe you would be right that it doesn’t make a difference in some ways, but when we’re proposing necessary assassinations, according to my moral intuitions it does make a difference. This is as regards moral principle. Now as to how that principle would be applied in your counterfactual situation, I would say that those Nazis whose motivation was more selfish would have been more easily expendable than those whose motivation was less selfish, whether that relative altruism of some was based on a correct estimation of “a great many goods” or even a sincerely deluded estimation.

                (Regarding “society’s right to intervene . . . is not overwhelming,” by the way — my thinking about bodily rights, as in a blog post of mine that you know about, leads me to depart from some pro-life thinking and to say that in the case of any pregnancy expected to be significantly rougher than a best-case pregnancy, a woman should have a right to abort — though I would usually think better of her if she did not.)

  • Could the philosophers who read my blog
    create a thought-experiment that forces me to bite the bullet and say
    that maybe in a circumstance where X, Y and Z are true that it would be
    morally permissible to start a civil war over abortion? Perhaps, but
    that thought-experiment will by necessity look REALLY different than
    America in 2013 does.

    If I have understood your preceding argument correctly, you mean “REALLY different” in terms of only one variable — the degree of despotism. I have understood your premise to be that as long as a society adheres to true democratic principles, it can NEVER produce a situation that would justify vigilante action. Have I misunderstood you?

    I think “never” would be too strong a word. Democracy is the sneaking suspicion that more than half the people are right more than half of the time. And even “more than half” is just a sneaking suspicion.

  • In Case 1 (the Pastor) and Case 3 (the Blogger), the message did not encourage violence, so the pastor and blogger are not culpable.

    What if, without encouraging violence, the pastor or the blogger had misrepresented their targets as being more unpleasant persons than they really were?

    Misrepresentation is sure to be one of the charges that pro-choicers will make against the CMP. I hope that those charges will be baseless. But —

    CMP denounced Planned Parenthood as a criminal enterprise

    — suppose PP was not technically criminal —

    Violence was a completely unreasonable (not to mention completely evil) response to their messages . . .

    You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to PP’s being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not make the CMP culpable — because even if PP is criminal, violence would be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?

  • rebeccavm

    I agree with much of your argument. However, please be cautious about throwing around the term “mentally ill.” The vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. A lot of us are pro-life too!

    • Crystal

      Another one here :)

    • I want to understand your concern better. Obviously we, and every other reasonable person, knows that not ALL mentally ill people are violent. Is your preference that nobody ever describes a mentally ill violent person as mentally ill?

      • I can see how “A deeply mentally ill person listens to
        the sermon and decides that . . . the
        doctors deserve to be killed” could conceivably be read as suggesting that being deeply mentally ill is a sufficient reason to so decide. I didn’t read it that way, but I can see how someone might.

      • rebeccavm

        My point is that mental illness =/ reprehensible behavior. Lots of people who do horrible things aren’t mentally ill, and many more people with mental illnesses are not violent. We don’t know if this guy has a diagnosed mental illness, and we’re in no position to make a diagnosis is one is warranted. If the pro-life movement is concerned with describing pro-choicers accurately, we have to do the same for other groups of people.

      • Crystal

        I personally would prefer they were called *criminally mentally ill*. Rebeccavm is right, she and I are not evil people just because we suffer depression, hear voices, have voices change feelings inside us, feel blamed for the junk that goes through our minds that we can’t help!

        :*(

  • Crystal

    I’d appreciate an opinion on this article:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/30/conservatives-must-acknowledge-how-dangerous-their-anti-abortion-rhetoric-really-is/

    Surely there is a difference between comparing the PRACTICE of abortion to slavery and calling every advocate for legal abortion (the PERSON disagreeing with us) a “baby-killer”?? Why is it violent rhetoric to explain the downsides of the PRACTICE of abortion, why is it dishonest to patiently explain the similarities between abortion and slavery and abortion and the Holocaust, I want to know. I agree that calling people names and demonising the opponents won’t help though, as we want to win people not drive them away. Please tell me the difference between these two statements:

    1) I do not consider you a nazi nor a vile person. However your beliefs lead you to advocate for a morally reprehensible practice

    2) You’re a fan of genocide

    How about these two:

    1) Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life, and by virtue of that is a human rights abuse; one out of many is that taking your life is as wicked as taking the unborn person’s life

    2) People who abort deserve to bleed to death and be shot; there is Biblical justification for taking out abortion butcherers

    Can someone please explain the differences between these statements?

    Also do you really think we are silently condoning a Holocaust by refusing to use guns? You see I’ve been dealing in a very interesting conversation with an advocate for legal abortion who has been strenuously asserting that if we really believed that stuff about abortion we say we’d go in and blow up abortion clinics otherwise we don’t really believe what we say. Any help out there?

    Here’s the thread:

    blog.secularprolife.org/2015/11/the-colorado-springs-shooting-what-we.html

    • “Surely there is a difference . . .”

      Thanks for some good thinking.

      I’ve been thinking about it in somewhat different terms: It’s common
      in some of the circles we find ourselves in to say that we should
      respect those we’re dialoguing with, or we should respect everybody.
      Doesn’t the logic of respecting those we’re dialoguing with lead us to
      respecting everybody?

      But where does that in turn lead us? “I respect Robert Dear, but I
      disagree with his ideas.” “I respect Adam Lanza, but I disagree with
      his ideas.” It feels a bit forced to say that. I would feel more
      honest saying, “I don’t respect Adam Lanza’s idea that he should shoot
      up a room full of 6-year-olds. I disrespect it.” But then there would
      probably be a lot of things about him I would disrespect. If his
      singing voice was bad, to be honest I would have had to say that I
      disrespected his singing voice, I disrespected his bad breath, etc.
      But surely there is something about him that I do respect? Well, his
      essential humanity and essential perfectibility. But then everybody
      has that. [I’ve typed up some more here about how the word “respect”
      could lose its utility, but I need to think about it.]

      MLK said that he didn’t like George Wallace and Bull Connor, though he
      loved them. Wouldn’t he have felt free to say “I don’t respect George
      Wallace and Bull Connor, even when I’m dialoguing with them, but I
      love them?”

      Without respecting someone, it’s still possible to speak
      respectfully to them. But is there never a time to flatly denounce
      somebody? Maybe the best formula would be to say that whatever may be
      the appropriate way to deal with somebody, we can and should do it
      without ego.

      “You see I’ve been dealing in a very interesting conversation”

      I’ll reply to you there.

      • Crystal

        I have been giving further thought to the question. This morning I read an article dealing precisely with the topic of anti-abortion violence, as written by people not professing to be pro-life:

        http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme?_ga=1.201140013.246407826.1449257486

        I will be honest and admit that these people have stated two things:

        1) these folks are fringe yet mainstreamed
        2) these folks have explicitly denounced violence

        Now then. If we are to take the argument that treating abortion as a sensitive political issue is not really caring for unborn persons on its face, we have a problem. We have two possibilities:

        1) The PL movement has been telling the truth, insisting that their movement is predominantly peaceful, and therefore will not adopt these arguments at face value as they can see the wisdom in behaving peacefully and lying low; they need then to be honest even as they compare abortion to other horrific practices, like, for instance, admit that abortion is more politically analogous to slavery than to nazism
        2) The PL movement has mainstreamed violence and deceived many of its followers via intimidating of abortion practitioners, threatening their lives, and in some cases bombing and shooting PP places, therefore violence has been tried for 40 years and found wanting; in this case, their point is moot

        • If I understood your previous post correctly, it addressed two issues:

          1. the difference between condemning a practice and condemning personally an advocate for that practice

          2. the validity or invalidity of the argument “if we really believed that stuff about abortion we say we’d go in and
          blow up abortion clinics otherwise we don’t really believe what we say.”

          There is probably some relation between the two issues, but I think that your post did not spell out that relation.

          I replied on this page to your 1, and on the SPL page to your 2.

          Now the main focus of your present post seems to be this issue —

          “the argument that treating abortion as a sensitive political issue is not really caring for unborn persons”

          — which seems to correspond much more to 2 in your previous post than to 1 in your previous post. I replied to your 2 on the SPL page. Since you are replying to me, wouldn’t it be better to paste your present post as a reply to me on the SPL page?

          • Crystal

            My apologies, the two points are unrelated. It was another argument I wanted to present as I was thinking it through recently and could see holes in their ideas – big ones! Sorry for the confusion.

            Of course if you want to thrash it out on the SPL site with me, we can do this; I love the extra stimulus :)

    • Guest

      I was under the impression that the Friendly Atheist blog had a reputation for being reasonable and fair to pro-life advocates, as well as taking their ideas seriously (much to the ire of many abortion proponents in the blogosphere). Looks like I’ll have to revise that assessment.

      • Crystal

        Did you read it?

        • Guest

          Of course. Didn’t you?

          • Crystal

            Yep. But that’s an odd question, because how else would I know what it said so well?

  • Wholovesorangesoda

    Very well written and well thought out. And I have to say, on another note, I greatly enjoy what you are doing in the pl movement. Thinking critically of ones side is pretty much something no one does nowadays. And it’s very refreshing indeed. The last year or two I have been having quite a bit of a prolife crisis so to speak.(I think it started when I saw a pic of a woman who had performed a coat hanger abortion on herself, and then the satvia case. Tough nasty reality.) So it’s really nice to hear someone trying to listen to all sides and take everyone serious on this almost impossible issue.

    I remember seeing a comment you made a while ago where you said u wanted to write about abortion to save the life of mom specifically. Any updates on that?! I think it really needs to be discussed seriously by us.

    • Guest

      He has a speech on the life of the mother case here:

      https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/mothers-life-risk-speech-audio/

      • Wholovesorangesoda

        Thanks for the link! The talk was mostly talking about ectopic pregnancies. However, I think the main problem is the whole direct/indirect unintentionally but forseen intentional but unforseen issue-The intentions of the act and how connected one is to the death of the fetus. There are situations that bring this reality out that are not related to ectopic pregnancies. Such as a woman who has a severely infected cervix and has just found out she’s six weeks pregnant. Also, as in the satvia case, there are women who are 17 weeks pregnant who are carrying a baby who’s bodily tissue is so infected that it is killing it- and seriously risking the mother(when also, a risk to ones health becomes a risk to ones life is also another issue that is brushed under the rug). I think it would do mu h good to talk about the actual reality of these situations.

        • Wholovesorangesoda

          And there are some other cases that are equally difficult to talk about. Say for example a seven year old is raped by her grandfather, is suicidal and is pregnant– with an acephalic fetus. I wonder how we should talk about these cases.

        • Guest

          I agree that the speech doesn’t deal with every possible situation, and I personally commented on the article identifying cases where the intentional/direct vs. unintentional/indirect dichotomy doesn’t seem to work. I believe Josh is planning on covering hard cases like these in the major project ERI is launching in 2016.

          • Wholovesorangesoda

            Ah, of course I didn’t even read the comments.

            ” I believe Josh is planning on covering hard cases like these in the major project ERI is launching in 2016.”

            Ok, great to know.

  • Wholovesorangesoda

    What’s menarche? And I honestly can’t tell you I remember knowing any 7 year old girls, except when I was seven, lol.

    Incredibly rare, I totally agree only point was to say I think we need to realize that even very rare cases are rare, they happen and need to be talked about ( And I think maybe I should have used an 11 yr old as an example because its much more common, just mentioned seven because there was some 7 year olds case a while back).

    And I completely agree that we shouldn’t go at this starting with the hardest of all cases and then saying, “ah well maybe there

    • Wholovesorangesoda

      There ARE horrific cases that are so unfathomably evil and difficult that it would need to be decided by those closet to the situation. We must remember, we do not live in the 1950’s. You get one tough case and the media gets its hands on it, forget it. Everyone and their pet will be taking specifically about the hard cases. I know it has nothing to do with the topic at hand here. Just wanted to get some thoughts on this! Thanks for ur reply!

      • Crystal

        Keep it on life, don’t let the law be made on hard cases. That’s where you fall into your traps.

    • Shifty

      You’re wasting your time with this shallow troll. Menarche is the onset of menses in young women.

      • Wholovesorangesoda

        I’m a dude. And I despise abortion. I actually thought I was being polite, trying to get some feedback by other providers and issues within the abortion conversation that have been nagging at me.I think like Josh says it is important for us to be critical of ourselves. And why the hell would I start screaming at anyone?

        • Shifty

          I didn’t say you would scream at anyone.
          You have gone and completely misunderstood my comment to you.

          I was referring to the Disqus user PJ4. It’s best to ignore her, she is dishonest in her tactics and openly admits to baiting pro-choicers so that she can cheaply and immorally paint people who disagree with her as miscreants.

          • Wholovesorangesoda

            Well that’s not good. Always hope for change if that’s true!

            • Shifty

              Indeed. This is a good site and I would hate to see the likes of her polluting you and this site. Take care and good luck.

              • Wholovesorangesoda

                And you as well!

          • Snarkalicious

            Hey Shifty! It’s me, your filthy girlfriend! Been missin ya down here in the gutter!

            • Shifty

              We can take this somewhere else Snark. You and your filthy gaggle of friends don’t belong here.

              • Snarkalicious

                Hey I like it in here! Lots of like-minded folks like you to wallow in the gutter with!

                • Shifty

                  Take a friends advice, go back to your main ID. Coward.

                  • Snarkalicious

                    What? That’s no way to treat a fellow connoisseur of rancidness and death!

                    • Shifty

                      You’re boring. See you on the flip side Snark.

                    • Snarkalicious

                      Naptime! Ok, I’ll be waitin for ya! Maybe we can swap some fresh baby parts.

                    • Shifty

                      Lulz. Moron. What’s your problem sock puppet?

                    • Snarkalicious

                      Up from nap already? Good! Let’s go find our favorite gutter and do some serious wallowin baybee!

                    • Shifty

                      I know this sort of backfires on your sinister plans, but I like you. :)

                    • Snarkalicious

                      I like you too! We are kindred spirits, you and I !

  • Wholovesorangesoda

    Oh, I’m sure everyone knows they exist! I was just wondering if anyone else feels like me and struggles with this at all. If anyone has anything new to say about the tough cases and how they should be dealt with from a prolife perspective.

    • Javelina Harker

      I do struggle with this, too. Not just with respect to abortion, but anything that causes harm to another.

      Full disclosure: I’m not pro-life. I’m anti-abortion. A small but important distinction, to me.

      I feel a tremendous, heart-wrenching empathy for those cases of rape, incest and abuse. I do regardless of the abortion angle. I recognise, though, that laws meant to serve a greater ethical purpose cannot be based on my feelings.

      It is the same process I work through when I hear about someone killing their longtime abuser. Some raw part of me cheers. Then my head catches up and I remind myself it is still murder and they must be held accountable, no matter how much my heart is screaming that the SOB deserved it.

      So I must hold fast to my belief that abortion should carry criminal consequences, even while I can simultaneously recognise there are instances where, while I cannot condone that choice, I can at least understand it.

      • Shifty

        It’s a good thing that you haven’t changed your stance on victim blaming. You must be anti-self defense then if it is in fact murder for someone to stand up to their abuser.
        I’m glad you’ll never be in charge of implementing any laws.

        • Javelina Harker

          Not at all; I merely expect that even killings in self-defence be investigated under the premise that a killing has occurred.

          I can see clear to abortion as a last resort measure to preserve the life of the mother, under strict medical regulation; I can even see clear to therapeutic abortions for minors, as there is a precedent for children to be granted certain allowances under the law for killing (how can I rationally expect someone who is not legally permitted to drive or sign a contract to be held to adult standards in this?).

          I cannot see clear to wholesale acceptance of abortion as a societal standard. And I have no doubt you’re glad I’m not in charge; your pusillanimity would not be pandered to. I know the idea of being responsible and accountable can be terrifying to the weak.

          • Shifty

            There are things far worse than death. I do humbly respect your musings in regards to this, I do not respect your double standard in ‘pusillanimity’ and lack of fortitude in regards to accepting the choices of sovereign women in a free country.

            • Javelina Harker

              Agreed to the first. Living a cowardly life among them.

              No double standard in pusillanimity; I am referring to you directly, not all those who espouse similar views. If we want to ripple out, my goal is equity; can a man terminate his lover’s pregnancy with ease, unconstrained by law, because he contributed 50% genetic material? Does he own that foetus?

              Finally, no class, gender, colour or creed is “Sovereign” in a Democracy. No one has complete autonomy within an ethical, non-Monarchical societal structure. Women do not have any greater rights than any others.

              • Shifty

                sighs-
                I have much courage.
                Equity is nice, but who said that life is fair?
                Can a man pick and choose his lovers better? Can a man not practice his own BC? The burden falls on women 100%. Hence why a woman does not need permission from said man to obtain an abortion.
                And the unborn do not have any greater rights than fully live and sentient people.

                • Javelina Harker

                  The burden does not fall on women 100%. Ask the men required to pay child support for children proven not to be theirs. They did not even get the pleasure of that grunt and squirt to be accountable for 18+ years of payment.

                  http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/11/paternity.cases/index.html?eref=yahoo

                  What constitutes the line of unborn sentience, “real live people”, etc continues to be challenged by increasingly more refined scientific and technological parameters. But I must commend you — when you write “And the unborn do not have any greater rights than fully live and sentient people.”, you recognise they have equal rights to life. Definitely not greater: I agree. Equal.

                  So they have a right to life, just as you and I do.

                  • Shifty

                    It falls on a woman’s body 100%
                    From her forever changed physiological, psychological and superficial changes to her body.
                    That is the fault of the courts, not the women. With today’s technology, there is no reason that any man anywhere in any western civilization should be court ordered to pay for another man’s child.
                    Science is only evolving and showing what most people have none for millennias, fetus is indeed a human baby.
                    They may or may not have rights over the woman carrying it. It’s the demeaning and abusive language of many anti abortion people that makes reaffirm our stances.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      I agree that pregnancy 100% falls on a woman’s body. Pregnancy is an eminently predictable avoidable outcome, though. Humans are not parthenogenetic.

                      I’m actually glad you’re asking me these questions and taking the stand you are; I tend to avoid the more frothingly vituperative posters, because it isn’t productive for me. I’m not interested in being right — like my being “right” means anything! — only chewing on the issues.

                      I firmly believe in a woman’s right to choose her sexual behaviour, and (as arguable as this is in con circles) to have access to birth control. No woman should ever be forced into sex. No woman, IMO, should be deprived secular medical prophylactic-preventative technology.

                      But with this authority and personal autonomy and technology comes responsibility. Women are not destined to be slaves of circumstance, we are not infants who need to be coddled, we are not stupid or dependent or inferior. We do not need abortion as it’s being implemented now. We can do better, show ourselves as better, with even a modicum of applied planning and self-discipline.

                    • Shifty

                      I’m being forthright with you when I say that this is one of the most well thought out and non abrasive retorts I have ever read from someone on the PL side.
                      If the movement had more people like you in its ranks, there is no telling what would come of the advocacy.
                      Thank you, Javelina.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Perhaps it’s just that I don’t view this as a war to be won or lost by argument alone. When all the science and the legal citations and the studies and the religious/secular arguments clear, it still comes down to a very personal determination.

                      I read, reply, think. I trust others do too, even if we end up on opposing sides. Both your advocacy and mine are useful in the light of the humble realisation that those reading both of us will, in the end, follow their own North Stars — we’re both only signposts.

                  • lady_black

                    They have no right to life at someone else’s bodily expense.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      That is one opinion, certainly. Another is that a life created wilfully through conscious action is ethically owed care and consideration by its creators.

                      This is the foundation of child support payments and neglect laws, after all.

                    • lady_black

                      That’s true, and also applies only to born children. If you can find me any case where a man has been ordered to pay child support for a fetus, or a miscarriage or stillbirth, I’d love to read it. I would be opposed to ordering child support for fetuses, of course. They have no economic needs.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Oh, that’s a straw man. Foetuses are not really considered people unless the carrying woman says so, just as men are not compelled to support their pregnant partners simply by virtue of them being pregnant.

                      However, it gets a little complicated at foetal killing. The mother may choose to do so. The father may not force her (legally) to do so, even if it poses no more risk or harm to her than a standard medical abortion. This adds the layer as you’ve noted of the mother’s biological autonomy in addition to the personhood of the foetus.

                      This boils down to a particular difference in vision as to how much emphasis female voice and biology be given as weighed against the rights of non-women.

                      As I do not believe I should be given any special abilities as a woman under the law than either a man or even a foetus (as the unborn largely meet my benchmark for what is a human being), I must reject abortion (among other things, like affirmative action) unless or until a man has the right to terminate his offspring under the same conditions women can.

                      If the foetus is not a person, and the abortion is performed under standard medical care and risk (which is widely viewed as extremely low), why should the biological father not be able to terminate with the same freedom as the mother?

                      Unfortunately “because she feels a certain way” is not a good legal precedent; and the mere facts of her biology, if upheld, open the door for the mere facts of the foetus’ biology to be considered equally. Why does one biology trump another?

                    • lady_black

                      Well OF COURSE he cannot force his pregnant partner to have an abortion. He doesn’t own her body. That’s slavery.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Does the woman “own” the foetus’ body? No? But the law allows for the foetus to be recognised as a separate charge, if they both are killed.

                      If I accept special graft simply for my biology and female identity, I can never complain when I am dismissed or insulted or denied jobs for it. My female standing as a protected class, in need of more allowances than men because I have a uterus, is already legally recognised.

                    • Crystal

                      Hi, Javelina, it’s Crystal. Thanks for your patience and civility :)

                      I read through your conversation last week, and wanted desperately to chat with you about the nature of criminalisation and a few other topics because I don’t mind a little healthy debate.

                      “If I accept special graft simply for my biology and female identity, I
                      can never complain when I am dismissed or insulted or denied jobs for
                      it.”

                      With respect, I must disagree, because women should never tolerate being dismissed, insulted, or denied jobs for being a woman, if I am reading you correctly.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Hi Crystal. :)

                      I agree that women should never be treated badly simply because they’re women.

                      The other side of that coin is that women should never be granted extra privilege because they’re women.

                      Abortion is a deeply feminist topic for me; I simply think, in application, the pro-choice side is truly turning women into “the weaker sex — needless slaves to their biology — instead of establishing equity with men.

                    • Crystal

                      Please come back here more often, Javelina. I appreciate your contributions.

                      I think you’re right about privilege as applied to women. However, sometimes women should at least have certain advantages tailored to suit their needs, like menstrual leave, for instance. Have you heard of it?

                      “Abortion is a deeply feminist topic for me; I simply think, in
                      application, the pro-choice side is truly turning women into “the weaker
                      sex — needless slaves to their biology — instead of establishing
                      equity with men.”

                      How is it doing that?

                      BTW I’m prolife.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Good heavens, menstrual leave as opposed to the same sick leave men can claim? No, never heard of it, and I’d never claim it. To do so would reinforce to my employer that I am only an equal employee when my uterus wasn’t active. I wouldn’t support especial prostate or priapism leave, either. Leave is leave.

                      My stance that the pro-choice movement as a whole is setting back gender equity is fairly straightforward: Women are legally granted the right to terminate a foetus solely based on being women.

                      Given that:

                      – pregnancy is largely foreseeable and overwhelmingly preventable; and

                      – a woman cannot conceive alone; and

                      – men are held responsible for their contribution to their offspring post-birth despite having no ability to dictate the birth of their offspring under the law, and

                      – an individual can be held liable for the death of a foetus during a murder, and

                      – the determination that a foetus is a person vs. being a non-person can be as illogical as a few seconds of lung use in the open air, then

                      QED, the law follows a narrative not based in science or gender equity, but based in “sympathy” for women, and gives them an unjust weight based solely on having female parts. I do not want sympathy (or laud) for being born with lady parts.

                      I wholly reject being judged solely on having female parts. I do not want laws in place that canonise being female as requiring injustice to others. To do so lessens me.

                    • Crystal

                      You have a very interesting perspective on menstrual leave. I tend to agree with it precisely because women’s bodies work differently from men’s and because menstruation can be used as a time to rest, recuperate, and gain new insights if it is believed in and loved properly. Menstruation is not treated with enough respect by the West and a few other cultures, I’m afraid. I realise it’s an old-fashioned notion to allow women to rest or take time off for emotional vacation (as they’re having pleasant ones in that case) during that time, but it’s one I believe in as it is strongly supported by so many other cultures and I have seen the benefits of it in my life.

                      It is a known fact that pregnancy can kill women, hence the intense desire to allow women that leave of absence from responsibility. Furthermore, men don’t have to suffer any potential drawbacks to pregnancy, although they do have their wallets sucked dry.

                      However, I agree with your point that women can take innocent life simply because they are women. That is not just to the unborn person, I think. You have explained your position very well and have given me thoughts I never considered before, so thanks. I think they are injustices too, but not so much to gender equality outside the womb as to all unborn persons, male and female alike. I wonder about the unborn women who should have had careers and equal pay. Apparently, their rights don’t count in the womb because they’re “intruders” if the woman doesn’t want them.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      You’re making me think too, Crystal, which is a gift I appreciate. Disqus, overall, has been incredibly useful at helping me refine my beliefs through both challenge and support.

                      Menstruation is a real thing, and is not treated (IMO) with balance currently. I support women in the military on principle, for example, but pretending it doesn’t exist and doesn’t affect performance (especially in Infantry) is foolish to me. Both the push to pretend women are the same as men in practice, and the glorification of its superficial byproducts as a feminist icon, gloss over the very truths it represents: women are different, we are life-bearers, necessary to society on a significant level.

                      Pregnancy can be harrowing. I am sympathetic to fears of it, especially because my own nearly killed me. I always come back, though, both to the fact that I knew this going into it and accepted the risk, and that my own diligent and exacting birth control/sexual refusal practices meant I really did choose my own risk. Eyes wide open.

                      I worry about the infantilisation present in (at least my own country’s) abortion laws. When women are given a free pass for reckless or thoughtless action, while men are not, what does it say for women’s ability to make sound judgements and bear accountability as men do? Are we not as smart, prepared, and brave as them?

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks for responding back with civility, Javelina. I appreciate your bluntness.

                      As for menstruation, it is treated as dirty and secret, rather than as the following:

                      1) an important part of being a woman
                      2) the quintessence of female sexuality
                      3) a spiritual, mind-opening experience where a woman finds she is more logical, more emotional, more intuitive, more spiritual, more everything good

                      I am at present on my own menstrual journey. I have experienced both painless menarche and agonising periods where I had to spend the day in bed, but am getting back up on the scale, and working hard towards painlessness.

                      A couple articles that have helped me are things like this, as they helped me to try to value menstruation again:

                      jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/download/18049/16812

                      http://www.academia.edu/3684332/The_Value_of_Menstruation_Positive_Meanings_of_the_Female_Lived-Body_Experience

                      I wrote up a long comment about why abortion is so damaging to society from a spiritual perspective as well; I hope you can read it sometime, and I reference Sharon Maloney, PhD’s work as well:

                      http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html#comment-2404203985

                      Also women can reduce or even overcome negative PMS. One reason negative PMS affects performance so much is that society doesn’t attend to women’s needs. Also, in the West, we use a lot of contaminants; I deal with that a little in these comments:

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2404526780

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/nine_dead_in_charleston_church_shooting/#comment-2401058416

                      The thing is, unborn persons will be affected by their environment, and if we don’t keep women healthy for their own sakes, they will definitely have a more difficult time having children as well as being a woman during certain times of the month. So women’s talk is essential to caring for pregnant persons, and far more tied into prolife causes than we think.

                      Thanks for not downplaying the difficulties of pregnancy. So many prolifers do it and it’s not good. Very interesting perspective on abortion weakening and infantilising women too.

                      I’ll write up more on your thoughts later, but please let PJ4, her friend Infadelicious, and Shifty, know they have to comment at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives if they want to see me again.

                    • Crystal

                      Here’s the more I promised.

                      Menstruation is beginning to be recaptured by certain groups of feminists as the special gift that it is. You’re right, we can’t pretend that women are the same as men biologically because they’re not. Yet the gift of biological femininity has been cursed and spat on by a patriarchal society that hates the fact that this
                      one thing is out of their power (I hope you don’t mind my saying that).

                      As I mentioned before, I appreciate the fact you don’t downplay the downsides of pregnancy and pretend that every baby comes out in a puff of smoke. I personally consider it very important to encourage women to search out either medical, natural, or
                      spiritual methods to overcome pain and discomfort in childbearing. We need to talk about it more, especially if we’re encouraging a woman to keep her baby. Feminine biology is much more spiritual than we realise and when we deny that,
                      we do ourselves great harm.

                      For the record I am tokophobic which seriously affects my views on childbearing. I find it both arousing (if painless but effort-filled) and terrifying (if painful). Here’s my story about struggling with tokophobia for years and finally beginning to recover from it:

                      http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/10/i-am-equal-not-same.html#comment-2309219176

                      So I thank you for your sympathy. I also recognise that many advocates for legal abortion want children of their own, and cherish their children. The only difference between them and us is that they see the extension of life as a gift from the mother which can be withdrawn at her will, and we see the extension of
                      life as a gift from God which can only be withdrawn with the Higher Power’s consent.

                      “I always come back, though, both to the fact that I knew this going into it and accepted the risk, and that my own diligent and exacting birth control/sexual refusal practices meant I really did choose my own risk. Eyes wide open.”

                      I must respectfully disagree. I take the pro-“choice” view that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy very seriously, because unborn persons are gifts from God rather than punishments for having sex whilst in possession of a uterus, and
                      stating the traditional pro-life view on the issue seems to lessen the worth of unborn persons, because it emphasises that what the couple did was a mistake; unborn people are not mistakes but opportunities for spiritual growth and life. However, I also realise that I have a responsibility to all humans (especially life I created) to cherish and love them, and protect their right to live, so on that level I can empathise with the responsibility argument. I would not
                      blame myself if ever I became pregnant outside of marriage. I would see it as an opportunity, a gift from God, a way to fulfil childbearing desires, a way to bless either myself or someone else reliable who wants to raise the child. I would not have an abortion, and would strongly discourage anyone else from
                      doing so because the moral repercussions of such an act are serious with long-lasting consequences. So what you say, with respect, reads to me like self-blame. You have nothing to reproach yourself wherewith, and you would not deserve to die just because you took a “risk” to have sex, even with stringent
                      BC and sexual refusal practices. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you but I take the view that women’s lives are very important and they shouldn’t be downplayed because of a “mistake”. Again, on rereading, it seems as if you did your best to be careful if you didn’t want to be pregnant but accepted the fact it could happen.

                      “I worry about the infantilisation present in (at least my own country’s) abortion laws. When women are given a free pass for reckless or thoughtless action, while men are not, what does it say for women’s ability to make sound judgements and bear
                      accountability as men do? Are we not as smart, prepared, and brave as them?”

                      Would you mind stretching my mind a little more by expounding exactly on what you mean by infantilisation in general, plus infantilisation in your own country, because I have heard the opposite view for a while. It is that women do not bear the same
                      risk as men, but a far greater one, because their lives are on the line every time they get pregnant. Therefore, to state that financial support is the same equally as pregnancy is downplaying the female contribution. I have to agree yet am very open to hearing a different opinion.

                      I think women get a free pass on pregnancy, due to biology, a lot of the time. Whereas men have to pay a lot of money which won’t impact their health or lives at all, although it *will* impact their pocketbooks a lot. Which is why they push women to get abortions, I think.

                      I believe I begin to see your reasoning. Due to the unfair burden placed on men to pay child support and take responsibility for their actions, men in turn pressure women to take the free road out (the abortion) so they do not have the unfair burden placed on them. Although quite a few advocates for legal abortion will
                      insist loud and clear that men should not have to pay child support if they don’t want to. I think in a way you could be onto something here. Giving men more responsibility does place them in a headship position over us rather, doesn’t it? So therefore, they can command us to have an abortion so we can be
                      available to them twenty-four-seven, and also so they don’t have to pay financially, correct? If you’re right, isn’t that making us into sex toys in the sense of conforming our bodies to what they want rather than being ourselves? Although advocates for legal abortion will insist that abortion is something that sets women free in every way – sexually, financially, etc. Due to the current way society views fertility as being in the man’s domain and not
                      the woman’s, and also due to the fact that contraception, sterilisation, and abortion have decreased the fear of pregnancy, I can understand their reasoning as well. I am for contraception and voluntary sterilisation due to the fact that they grant women this well-deserved freedom from the fear of pregnancy, as
                      no woman should be open to life except through her own volition, YET I cannot call the practice of denying an unborn person his/her life anything short of abominable.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      I’ve read this over carefully, and even where we disagree I don’t think your reasoning is specious, merely different.

                      I believe much of our difference comes from a spiritual divergence; for me, God plays no part in birth, abortion or womanhood. For me, it is a very practical, biological framework.

                      Tokophobia can be crippling (one of my dear friends has it, and it made Nursing very difficult at times for her). I’m impressed you recognise and own it.

                      The line between self-blame and self-accountability can be small (illustrated best in rape culture arguments). For me, it’s more of a neutral, observational standpoint. If I play hockey without a helmet and get my teeth knocked out, is it the fault of the other player or did I take an assumed risk? I don’t apply emotional burden on the idea of “mistakes” or errors or even bad choices; they are what they are.

                      When women are granted reprieve that men are not, it means they are held to a lower standard of personal responsibility. This essentially puts women in the “child” class, hence infantilisation, and is exactly the train of thought that kept women from having the same freedoms (education, dress, driving, voting) for so long, and put “hysteria” as a commitable mental illness.

                      Men are accountable from the second their sweat dries. Women are not, unless they choose to be so. That is a terrifying imbalance of power, to me, especially in light of paternity fraud and the fact that some men feel the loss of the unborn just as acutely as women who miscarry. The law has made me an unwilling and potentially capricious tyrant — again, a child holding a loaded gun who will face no punishment if I squeeze.

                      Where I live, abortion is unrestricted. This means fully viable babies may be terminated at will, for free. The lack of financial requirement results in even more of a “free pass”, and multiple abortions are common.

                    • Crystal

                      I’ll write up more on your thoughts later, but please let PJ4, her
                      friend Infadelicious, and Shifty, know they have to comment at Secular
                      Pro-Life Perspectives if they want to see me again.

                      Also, since I think you might not come back, that’s where I’ll be if you want to chat again.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Kindly, Crystal, I don’t message run (self preservation primarily). The Upvote Gang is not nearly so deliberate as to have Moriarty’s spiderweb network. :)

                      However, if they (PJ4, Infa, Shifty) read this they will know. I’ve enjoyed our correspondence in a remarkably non-trolly way, and I’m sure we’ll cross paths again.

                    • Crystal

                      http://blog.secularprolife.org/

                      That’s another prolife website I write my comments up at. They’re looser than this one in what they’ll allow and what they won’t.

                      Shall we carry our conversation there? It was getting very interesting and I don’t want to miss your further contributions, LOL :)

                    • lady_black

                      Nonsense. You don’t get rights because of your uterus. I have no uterus, and all the same rights you have. And neither of us have any right to any organ that belongs to another.
                      No the woman doesn’t “own” the fetus. But she does own her uterus, and as such gets final say on what it’s used for. You know (and I’m not trying to be a smartass), I have never heard an anti-abortion argument that couldn’t be used to justify rape. That’s right. I don’t care what my vagina is “for.” It’s mine, and I get to decide who uses it and how. And I can kill to keep that right.

                    • Crystal

                      Okay, I hope you don’t mind if I ask you what type of bodily autonomy you believe in.

                      Quotes taken from the following:
                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/

                      “The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a
                      human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use
                      of her body.”

                      “The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the
                      unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an
                      abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with
                      anything inside the sovereign zone of her body.”

                      Which one is it?

                    • lady_black

                      Bodily autonomy is a pretty basic concept, Crystal. It means nobody is ever entitled to anything from your body without consent. Even if you’re a corpse.

                    • Crystal

                      That makes sense. So I take it you believe that even if the unborn is a human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use of her body?

                      I ask not because I’m dumb but because I want to get it right, and also because others see bodily autonomy a little differently, as I described in my previous reply.

                    • lady_black

                      Yes, she does. She isn’t, after all, property.

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks, that was what I was looking for. Right to Refuse. Got it.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Having a uterus grants a woman to kill a conceived organism she only contributed 50% to the creation of, merely because her uterus carries it. That’s a lot of power.

                      If we do not have rights to organs that are not ours, then a woman cannot ethically donate the organs of that foetus.

                      I agree a woman can dictate what her reproductive organs are used for — which is why I come down so heavily on rapists and why I staunchly advocate for birth control. Except in the rare and horrible cases of rape, a woman does indeed have the ability to stop her uterus from being used to house a baby… before it happens.

                      Afterward is when the lines become drawn — because there is a question of where her body stops and another’s begins.

                    • lady_black

                      Yes, women CAN ethically donate the fetal tissue. And she can donate the organs of her born minor children after they die untimely as well. Why? Certainly not “because she has a uterus.” But because in the case of a fetus, the tissue was removed from her body. In the case of a minor child (say an anencephalic infant) because she is the natural parent who has certain legal rights over the disposition of remains of her child. That’s just how it works.
                      Like most anti-choice people, you are making value judgments about how women have sex. Otherwise, you wouldn’t so easily assign less value to a fetus conceived in rape to one conceived in love. To me, there is no difference. She can house or decline to house either one. I can conclude that to you, it’s not about a fetus. There is no line to draw. Her body is always hers.
                      I have nothing but admiration for organ donors, and whole body donors. Their selfless donation makes it possible to save lives and improve the lives of many others. You’re barking up the wrong tree if you expect that to disgust me.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      I don’t expect anything about you. :)

                      So sometimes we do have rights over organs that aren’t ours. Excellent! So a foetus piggybacking on its mother’s living organs should not be a disgusting idea; that’s just how it works.

                    • lady_black

                      Uh, NO we do not have rights over organs that aren’t ours as regards adult human beings and adult corpses. You need to pay closer attention. I said PARENTS have rights over the DISPOSITION of their minor children’s remains until such time as the child becomes an adult.
                      Parents can also compel their LIVING minor children to undergo medical treatment, up to and including surgery, but even that includes no right to make an organ donor of a living minor child.
                      The implications are that all babies and children who need organ transplants must obtain them from babies and children who have passed on, because until they grow large enough to accept adult organs, there are no living donors for them.
                      Trust me, if it were you or your child, you would develop a deep appreciation for the generous donations of people in tragic situations. They care enough about others to make that sacrifice. I myself have cadaver donor tissue in my own body, and it’s greatly enhanced the quality of my life. I have nothing but gratitude for the anonymous donor. So much so that I wrote letter to their families, letting them know how their unselfish gift made a big difference to a real person, rather than an abstract idea. I think they deserved to know that. And my desire is to return the favor when the time comes. I am a registered organ donor.
                      It’s the right thing to do.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      I’m a registered organ donor too (not that most of mine will be useful when the time comes), and I gave blood like clockwork until I was prohibited from doing so.

                      This is not about organ donation. It is about your challengeable statements about who has what right to whose organs, and the rationale for such.

                      If a mother has the authority over her child’s organ donation, why does she not have the coin’s flip side of care for those organs? Why is she only responsible in the negative, especially in utero?

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks for your common sense, Javelina. I never thought of it that way before.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      It’s merely a thought facet. In born children, the mother has both a duty of care to a recognised person as well as authority over their medical decisions.

                      In unborn children, there is no duty of care but similar authority, despite scientific evidence of individual personhood (especially at the point of development at which organs become biomedically useful).

                      Is this, yet again, an asymmetric example of “Mother knows best”?

                    • Crystal

                      I have responded to your comment at the following link:

                      blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html#comment-2408769385

                      I hope to see you there.

                    • Crystal
                    • Crystal

                      The argument being employed a little is Thompson’s Violinist. Have you heard that argument?

                    • Javelina Harker

                      I have not. I will Google-Fu. :)

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks for looking, and thinking through it. Now you will know what you are up against a little better.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Okay, I’ve read it. :)

                      This is fairly easy to deconstruct, for me.

                      Consensual sex resulting in conception cannot be equated to forcible kidnapping. The Good Samaritan argument dissipates when the woman chooses to hook herself to the violinist, or even chooses the predictable roulette possibility of such.

                      A first year Crit-Think student could destroy this.

                      Edited to add: I’m not inclined to post here anymore. But I’ve enjoyed the discussion and give a nod for the breadth I’ve been given.

                    • Crystal

                      Fair enough. It would mean so very much if we could carry our discussion onto this page:

                      http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html

                      You could give your opinion of the article *at the site* and I could respond to you *there* not here.

                      As for that Thompson’s Violinist, I have run into it commonly in my discussions with abortion advocates. It is such a confusing argument I nearly tear my hair out over it. Warning – if you debate with these people for a long time you will hear it, mark my words.

                      “Consensual sex resulting in conception cannot be equated to forcible kidnapping. The Good Samaritan argument dissipates when the woman chooses to hook herself to the violinist, or even chooses the predictable roulette possibility of such.”

                      Ah, but you see, the point is, she *chooses* to allow the unborn person a chance at life, just like the woman *choosing* or *being forced* to be hooked to the violinist, and she can withdraw her consent at any time. So, in other words, you cannot use another person’s organs without their consent, not even for your very life.

                      Ever heard of the court case McFall vs Shrimp; if not, I suggest you read this:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFall_v._Shimp

                      This is one case that is being used by advocates for legal abortion to stop prolifers from winning in the legal sphere.

                    • lady_black

                      And I’m of the opinion that even if the woman consents to be hooked up to the violinist, she can withdraw her consent at any time. And my opinion reflects the legal reality of the situation.
                      You’re arguing, in essence, that if I have consented to something, that consent is once for all time. Consent doesn’t operate that way. I can withdraw consent in the middle of a sex act, in the middle of pregnancy, and yes, after a week or a month of hooking myself to the violinist. EVEN if he will die, and EVEN if he only needs it for nine months.
                      The fact of the matter is I don’t owe it to him. His need doesn’t create a right. And yes, it would be a tremendous act of Good Samaritanism, regardless of who did the hooking up.

                    • lady_black

                      “If a mother has the authority over her child’s organ donation, why does she not have the coin’s flip side of care for those organs?”

                      Because if the organs are being DONATED, that means the child is DEAD. Did you seriously need to be informed on that matter? You and all the up-voters of your comment? Really. No wonder you don’t ‘get it.’
                      As an adult and a person, I do not have to allow an unwanted person to use my body as a walking incubator.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Well, in the case of the foetus, already dead when the organ donation begins — which is to say, killing them in such a way the organs are preserved — gets a bit grey.

                      They’re certainly dead by the time the process is finished, though. Evisceration does that to a person.

                    • lady_black

                      Except there is neither “evisceration” nor “person” in this situation.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      That is a matter of linguistic sophistry intended to soft-peddle the objective reality of both the process and the target.

                      The alteration of language to mask the potential horror of a situation is very common.

                    • lady_black

                      When I am dead, and my body is “eviscerated” “dissected” or any other word you chose to use (mine will be donated to medical science, and medically, the word “evisceration” doesn’t apply, but dissection definitely does) language DOES matter.
                      You can’t simply say “Abortion means the murder of an innocent human being” when the word means nothing of the kind. This is “Lewis Carol-ism”, stating “Words mean what I say they mean.” No, they absolutely don’t, and that is the linguistic sophistry.
                      “Person” is a legal term, and doesn’t always mean a human being. “Abortion”(as we’re using it) is a medical term meaning the termination of a pregnancy prior to viability.
                      “Murder” is also a very precise legal term that isn’t defined the same as “killing.” And the victim need not be “innocent.”

                    • Crystal

                      Truth!

                      “Don’t call it a baby; that’s dishonest.”

                      Yet when the mother wants it, she automatically talks about the baby. I’m not against using scientifically correct terms, though. If it’s foetus, scientifically, I will use that. Yet the colloquial usage term *is* baby and that’s what we try to point out here – the inconsistency.

                      Also softened – the “procedure”, etc – no we need to talk about it in its ugliness so people will be repulsed – with the *action* not the person committing the action – and turn away from it.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Viewing abortion baldly is what finally changed my mind; I’d only heard the soft prettified words. I’d never looked at the reality.

                      Once I did, my switch flipped. Not that I’m especially squeamish — quite the opposite — just that the “not a person” stuff went poof in an instant.

                    • Crystal

                      Yes, I know. How can they not see?

                      I was raised in a very prolife family in the sense that my family’s belief on the question was prolife; we didn’t campaign outside clinics or that sort of thing. I have always believed abortion is wrong. You can’t help recognising its humanity when you see the little unborn person developing, via ultrasound, etc. It’s a small person all right. When they use the big-sounding words to describe abortion, they are trying to soften that nasty reality that abortion kills, but *when* someone looks up the words they use they learn differently.

                      What led you to view abortion baldly, if you wouldn’t mind relating?

                    • Javelina Harker

                      I was touring the US with a band, and I’d gotten in the habit of flipping through the phone books to see how different the US was from Canada.

                      While in Delaware, I stumbled upon a full page of ads for abortion clinics. As here abortion is part of our healthcare, I’d never seen an advertisement for it. One of these ads had, in very small print, “up to 23 weeks” (NB: this may have changed in legislation since then, but such does not change the core of this narrative).

                      I read that line a few times.

                      23 weeks.

                      5 1/2 months.

                      This niggled me. I’d patted the bumps of 5 1/2 month mothers. Surely it wasn’t just a clump of cells then?

                      So when I got home, I went to the library and researched embryology and foetal development. I then promptly puked in the bathroom for several hours. I felt I’d been lied to my whole life.

                      THIS is why ultrasounds are important.

                    • Crystal

                      Well, I am glad you found the truth for yourself.

                      They are telling the truth when they say it’s a clump of cells … in the very early stages, zygote and possibly blasocyst, but even then, the cells are rapidly dividing and moving. When it has attached to the wall and begun developing into a human form, it has become more than a clump of cells. I mean, little buds start forming on the hands about, like, six weeks after the last menstrual period:

                      http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

                      How can this not be a human being? I do not understand. To perpetuate this idea of it being a clump of cells at five months is beyond me. Yet they might say “bodily autonomy instead” because it’s obviously more than a clump of cells then. It’s wrong, all wrong.

                      “THIS is why ultrasounds are important.”

                      Personally, I think that ultrasounds should be voluntary if a woman is getting a check-up and being counseled not to have an abortion. If she refuses an ultrasound it is not wrong to show her pictures of what she is carrying though, I think.

                      Yes, ultrasounds are important because they blow this stuff out of the water. You’re right there.

                    • wiffle

                      Yeah, and sometimes people use fancy words to make things sounds better, too. ;)

                    • lady_black

                      Oh, and by the way, if he’s pregnant, he has the right to an abortion. He cannot, however, force her to undergo any kind of surgery. Did you miss that memo?

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Pregnant men are a misnomer; they may identify as such, but biological female parts are required.

                    • Crystal

                      They’re known as transmen.

                      Have you heard of the Thomas Beatie case?

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Yes, I know the terminology and the Beatie case. :) I give little shrift to trans terminology in terms of abortion, as identity has no bearing on what happens when sperm meets ovum.

                      I accept that “man” and “woman” are becoming increasingly irrelevant in social terminology, but speaking from a biological standpoint there are still benchmarks and I do not tailor my language to suit gender fluidity.

                      Beatie is a he socially. A she genetically and structurally. In this way there are no pregnant men (males). Beatie is not a man, but a trans man.

                    • wiffle

                      “I accept that “man” and “woman” are becoming increasingly irrelevant in social terminology, ”

                      I don’t. I’m resisting Wonderland. Tired of the Queen of Hearts ruling the conservation. ;)

                      “Beatie is not a man, but a trans man.”

                      I’m not even willing to give that much ground in this particular topic.

                      She’s a woman, who has successfully convinced the world for her own purposes that she is not. She was a model in her teens, for goodness sake.

                      Yes, she does pull off a tie very well in male manner. But her walk in Wonderland is going to mess up her kids. I don’t have much patience for it.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      Lol, I’ve been kicked off message boards for refusing to use genderfluid language (I think it was when I pointed out the Mod used “dickbag” freely as an insult… Tsk tsk! ^_^ ).

                      My patience is increasingly wearing thin as well. True story:

                      A family member works in a homeless shelter for men, and is now having to navigate trans issues that are disrupting the already tenuous ecosystem of the street community.

                      Last week, a woman showed up claiming to be a man, demanding a berth. The shelter must comply. She then used her time there to turn tricks. When questioned, she said “Well I’m a GAY man.”.

                      There is also a guest there claiming he is a woman, so he wants a female bathroom… in a men’s shelter. The workers have had to give up THEIR private bathroom to accommodate.

                      Insanity.

                    • Cajun Exile

                      Gay man and entrepreneur! She would have probably gone places had she not been a drug addict, alcoholic and/or mentally ill.

                    • Javelina Harker

                      My thought too — props for being clever and gaming the system, at least! Talk about a captive consumer base monopoly!

                    • wiffle

                      I’m saddened but not shocked to hear it. It was all very predicable and sort of the point. :(

                    • Crystal

                      As a liberal I have to respectfully disagree. Personally, as I was raised old-fashioned, my mind will still think of the trans person as their biological sex. When I first saw Caitlyn Jenner’s sex change I couldn’t help noticing her hands still looked masculine. I can still see things in the sex-changed person that remind me of their biological sex. Finally when I see a man with a dress on while having a beard, I personally find that very difficult to accept. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop fighting for trans rights. Yes, I call them transmen or transwomen because I care about being inclusive and not treating them badly. I might personally disapprove or seek to question their choices intellectually but I can understand where they’re coming from in regards to their identity and I respect and support that decision because that is what they believe themselves to be; they are no more confused for this than I am for being a cis-hetero woman.

                      I strongly support gender-fluid language, BTW. So we will have to disagree on this topic, I’m sorry. That doesn’t mean I won’t treat you with respect; it just means we will have a difference at this particular juncture.

                    • wiffle

                      “I might personally disapprove or seek to question their choices intellectually but I can understand where they’re coming from in regards to their identity and I respect and support that decision because that is what they believe themselves to be; they are no more confused for this than I am for being a cis-hetero woman.”

                      I have been around people with mental illnesses. My Mother has had been a client of the mental health system for as long as I can remember. I can tell you from personal experience that the way to make everything worse is to try to make their pretend world as real as possible. It just never works.

                      I do appreciate the pain, more than it might initially appear. But the way to less pain is to acknowledge reality, not shelter people from it. It’s the only path to peace or even something resembling it. It seems to rude them, but their system of understanding the world is already quite skewed.

                      “That doesn’t mean I won’t treat you with respect; it just means we will have a difference at this particular juncture.”

                      That’s perfectly fine. The world at large, thankfully, has not had my personal experiences on the matter. :)

                    • Crystal

                      I know what mental illness is. If they perceive themselves to be mentally ill I will share that opinion. If they don’t I won’t. It’s all on them. Although I fear I might be seen as transphobic for some of my views :(

                      If a gay person wants to change to hetero, I support that decision. If they don’t I won’t. Yep, I actually got in trouble for saying being gay was a choice but a choice to be respected like religion, once :(

                      As a mentally ill person (schizophrenia) I personally disagree that they are mentally ill.

                      I have been recently battling (a little) with a guy who thinks transpeople aren’t people but now they’ve changed themselves they deserve death. He gloated over the fact he’d spat in a gay person’s face. I’m curious as to your take on that one.

                    • wiffle

                      ” If they perceive themselves to be mentally ill I will share that opinion. If they don’t I won’t. It’s all on them.”

                      Yes, this is a difference of experience/opinion. I’ve never met a truly mental ill person who really thought they were mental ill or really accepted it. Not even my Mother, really.

                      The only way to classify mental ill, to me is the inability to cope, in some manner with life and requiring outside help in the form of therapy and drugs. People who imagine their life would be better as another gender are chronic users of the mental health system by definition. A shocking number of homosexuals are the same. They simply aren’t coping with life and turn to others for help on a regular basis, for stuff that most people simply face with a shoulder shrug, a laugh, or sometimes a cry.

                      “As a mentally ill person (schizophrenia) I personally disagree that they are mentally ill.”

                      I’m going to go for as gentle as possible with this next statement and follow by a compliment. If you really are schizophrenic, you are no position to judge the mental health of others. :(

                      That said, it must be extremely mild and/or anxiety induced because none of the schizophrenics I’ve met are having conversations like this. (Admittedly small number, I’m not a working professional.) Nor have they ever been really able to accept it. One of the many ironies of life (at least from my view.) The moment you can 100% accept you have a mental illness, you’re well on your way to recovery.

                      “I have been recently battling (a little) with a guy who thinks transpeople aren’t people but now they’ve changed themselves they deserve death. He gloated over the fact he’d spat in a gay person’s face. I’m curious as to your take on that one.”

                      I think it’s very unfortunate that people use the problems of others to hate and shore up their own insecurities. It’s terrible actually and I would stop it if I saw it and argue against myself. There’s really no excuse for that type of behavior.

                    • Crystal

                      “Yes, this is a difference of experience/opinion. I’ve never met a truly
                      mental ill person who really thought they were mental ill or really
                      accepted it. Not even my Mother, really.”

                      Well, a mentally ill person, if they can accept there is a problem, there is a chance for healing. Also I don’t accept it. I acknowledge it exists but I don’t call it “my mental illness” but rather “the mental illness that assaults me”.

                      “The only way to classify mental ill, to me is the inability to cope, in
                      some manner with life and requiring outside help in the form of therapy
                      and drugs.”

                      As someone who is seriously considering therapy when I get the opportunity, I take issue with that definition. Do you seriously believe that a person who suffered torture in prison (I didn’t) and would go for therapy to work through that problem is mentally ill? Also I have a very dear friend who was raped, and the thing she needs is therapy. To say that victims of cruelty are mentally ill because they need therapy sounds unreasonable to me, to say the least. Last but not least, some people suffer with depression who *do* need drugs, and yes they would be mentally ill. But mentally ill doesn’t necessarily mean *violent*.

                      I realise that a lot of people in the LGBTQ+ community suffer greatly with a lot of unresolved issues, so I’m not just going to dismiss what you said about these people getting therapy, etc, because I’m not that close-minded. I think that at least part of their problems stem from the fact they are seen as dirty and abnormal for who they are/who they choose to be.

                      “If you really are schizophrenic, you are no position to judge the mental health of others.”

                      True indeed. But, with respect, it seems to me that you could be doing just that. Can you honestly prove that trans people are more mentally ill by virtue of being trans than cis people (people whose biological gender matches up with their mental gender)?

                      “That said, it must be extremely mild and/or anxiety induced because none
                      of the schizophrenics I’ve met are having conversations like this.”

                      There are times I struggle to type or write. You could be correct in saying it was mild, but I had problems much more severe than this a long time back. Furthermore, I’m not on drugs. That might make a difference. I asked God to heal me and s/he is doing just that.

                      “I think it’s very unfortunate that people use the problems of others to
                      hate and shore up their own insecurities. It’s terrible actually and I
                      would stop it if I saw it and argue against myself. There’s really no
                      excuse for that type of behavior.”

                      On that, we agree totally. I appreciate the fact you can recognise such behaviour is wrong. Furthermore, I don’t believe just because you disapprove of an action means you are a hater of people. I hate abortion, fundie Islam, rape culture, white privilege, and a host of other evils. But that doesn’t mean I let my hate of the action transfer onto the people practicing these actions, despite the fact I consider such actions extremely evil.

                      I don’t think it’s wrong to critically evaluate a sexual behaviour either. I do it myself. I simply believe that critically evaluating a sexual behaviour shouldn’t include discrimination against a marginalised group of people without good reason. If it could be proved to me, for instance, that gays are more pedophilically inclined than heteros from unbiased evidence or personal critical observation I wouldn’t shut that out. But at the same time I would not be open to hating on all gays because of the actions of a few, or even a significant minority of the minority.

                      I deeply appreciate that we can talk civilly about this, LOL.

                      Also, I realise it’s getting off-topic. Why not transfer the conversation to this website:

                      http://blog.secularprolife.org/

                      Thanks for the chat :)

                    • lady_black

                      Well, then you have your answer, don’t you?

                • Crystal

                  The only way an unborn person can live for the present is by being attached to something else. Is it not cruel to cut off its only means to life?

                  • Shifty

                    Yes it is. But life can be cruel.

                    • Crystal

                      That doesn’t justify cutting off its only life supply. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t attempt to employ science and move it to another place once we have developed the equipment to do so either.

                      The relationship between pregnant and unborn person is so unique it is the only way the ZEF can survive, for the present.

                    • “That doesn’t justify cutting off its only life supply.”

                      I agree. The statement “life can be cruel” is meaningful only because of the fact that life can be compassionate also. If not for that fact, “life can be cruel” would not mean anything.

                      In other words, “life can be cruel” makes it clear that there is an alternative to being cruel. Therefore, as you say, the fact that life can be cruel does not justify being cruel.

                    • Crystal

                      You are a smart man, LOL :)

                      I couldn’t have argued it better myself!

                      Life is compassionate every time someone stands for something just. We must cherish it otherwise we will have a devastating price to pay. You would agree, correct?

                    • I agree, and I think that the devastating price is not just incidental. The devastating price is a toll on our mental peace and mental expansiveness (a “bad conscience”). When we do wrong, our mind shrinks, and when we do right, our mind grows bigger. The devastating price is not just an incidental effect of doing wrong, it is how we know we have done wrong. (And an expanded, peaceful mind is how we know we have done right.) I think that ultimately this, not any logical proof, is the only way we know right from wrong.

                    • Crystal

                      My mother would say that sin narrows your perspective. She is a Christian, BTW.

                      And you’re absolutely right. It’s called the conscience.

                      “When we do wrong, our mind shrinks, and when we do right, our mind grows bigger.”

                      That is a very fascinating way of looking at it. How did you come by that interpretation?

                      Doing wrong like this corrupts our society, and contributes significantly to moral and social decay. We have so many rights but what is their meaning if my basic right to live is not respected? I am here to amuse myself during my breaks from working for the Elite System, nothing more. At least, this is what it reads to me.

                    • “How did you come by that interpretation?”

                      That is to be found within Indian philosophies, and it seems correct to me based on my vast experience of doing wrong and occasionally right.

                      I will ask you a question about the Elite System later, but right now I have to go do something for a while (hopefully something right this time).

                    • Crystal

                      Elite System = the system our society is run on. We go to work. We put our kids in school. Our doctors make life and death decisions over our bodies. That system.

                      Please, tell me more about Indian philosophies as it relates to this topic. I find Indian thought very fascinating :)

                    • “My mother would say that sin narrows your perspective. She is a Christian, BTW.”

                      But that idea is probably based on the same subjective experience of the mind as the idea of shrinking.

                      “more about Indian philosophies as it relates to this topic”

                      A blog post of mine on bodily rights refers to Indian philosophy (as a possibility only, and without mentioning it by name) in relation to moral intuitions. Search in that post for “transcendent experience”. I’d be happy to say more about Indian philosophy, but it would be better to discuss it in the comments section of that post, since it would be off-topic here.

                    • Crystal

                      “But that idea is probably based on the same subjective experience of the mind as the idea of shrinking.”

                      Why do you say that?

                      I looked in your article, and tried to find “transcendent experience” via the search engine, and couldn’t. I also found it a little difficult to comment (I am using Tor at the moment). I hope you don’t mind if I take my questions on Indian philosophy to SPL instead then.

                      This forum has become a mess. People accusing each other, taking issues off-topic (and I confess I took things off-topic myself somewhat); could you come down and help sort this out please? It would mean so much to me as I don’t want these folks getting banned when Josh comes back.

                    • “I looked in your article, and tried to find ‘transcendent experience’ via the search engine”

                      Hmm. It’s there. Don’t include the quote marks in the search. Please try searching with your browser’s Search (usually Ctrl-F) rather than the blog’s Search.

                      “I am using Tor at the moment”

                      At the bottom of the blog post, below all the other
                      comments, can you see “Leave a Reply”? There you just need to give your name and a comment — no need to give email address or website. There our discussion would be on-topic. But if that doesn’t work, SPL would be okay.

                      “help sort this out”

                      I know what you mean about the mess, but I don’t have any authority here and don’t think any commenters would listen to me. Moreover, Josh might just find any attempts of mine to be further complicating things. Someone has deleted all the Snarkalicious comments (funny though they were, in a way) — wasn’t it Josh who did that? Maybe he’s on the case.

                    • Crystal

                      I found “transcendent experience”. But I couldn’t comment on your website though I did what you said. Must be the browser :(

                      I hope you don’t mind taking it to SPL!

                      As for the mess, you’re very wise to stay out of it. I want your opinion: do you think my attempts to referee are in need of improvement or did I do well on the whole, or both? I’m asking because if I need correction I don’t mind having it, rather than trying to be self-centered :)

                    • Hmm. This comment of yours about “transcendent,” “SPL” and “mess” is so similar to the comment you posted just 5 min. earlier, that I’m wondering if it appeared to you that the earlier one had not gone through. And in fact a copy of the earlier one didn’t reach my email — only a copy of this one I’m replying to. Was there some small Disqus glitch?

                      I thought your attempts to referee were obviously coming from a positive place in you and therefore could only be well-taken by everyone including the moderator. They may have had some effect, even if it wasn’t a complete solution. Actually I could have made a moral appeal of that sort also — it was a more authority-based approach that I felt I would be unable to attempt. Some commenters wouldn’t be familiar with me — some might not even be familiar with you — but for those who are familiar, I would think that I would have less moral authority than you, because it’s obvious that you love everybody. I actually love everybody also, but I often make little effort to make that clear.

                      Please send me a post somewhere in the SPL world.

                    • Crystal

                      There was a Disqus glitch. On seeing my first attempt didn’t carry through I tried again and this time it worked :)

                      Thanks for the praise; it’s very sweet of you and it feels like a shower of petals on my head. I’m happy to know I was helpful to the moderator as well! Just curious – how do you know I love everyone?

                      I don’t like online fights, especially having been the target of being picked to bits by a whole group of people – it happened at least twice, and was a very painful experience :*(

                      I’ll take my comments about Indian philosophy here then. Look for me there, and I’ll try to get there ASAP:

                      http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html

                      Oh, and I owe you an apology. I have been a very naughty girl by not answering all your comments though I said I would, but I think in this case it is somewhat forgivable (if you will excuse my saying so) as I have been studying for an exam!

                    • Shifty

                      It is unique, and unfortunately, not all women view pregnancy as a blessing and an honor.
                      Artificial wombs would be ideal for the woman caught in an unwanted pregnancy. You will have fanatics condemning this for a myriad of reasons but as long as the fetus is kept alive, who cares what they have to say.

                    • Crystal

                      Agreed 100%!

                      I think such devices are key to finalising the abortion debate once and for all, although they don’t completely answer the dilemma of adoption or parenting and those issues would have to be worked out as well, for this to really succeed.

                      I’m not sure what kinds of “reasons” fanatics could come up with to condemn such life-saving devices though. Could you expound?

                    • Shifty

                      Yes, religious fundamentalists would probably see women who use artificial wombs as abandoning the roles of womanhood. What do you think?

                    • Crystal

                      Isn’t women’s rights one of the reasons such inventions are supposed to exist?

                      Also, to save unborn people’s lives. Since all life is precious from the moment of conception we should seek to protect it by whatever means possible.

                      Here’s a comment I wrote about some of the problems in the PL
                      movement; please take a read of it and tell me what you think of it in general. Also do you believe that the PL movement would improve if such techniques were employed as suggested:

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480

                    • Crystal

                      I suspect on their side there would be a bunch of whining and howling, although I would wonder why, as I thought they were concerned with precious little unborn babies.

                    • Shifty

                      Because it’s about ensuring that women know their place.

                    • lady_black

                      A woman’s place = Wherever she wants to be.

                    • lady_black

                      The role a woman plays isn’t theirs to determine.

                    • Shifty

                      Clearly they believe it is.

                    • lady_black

                      I don’t care what they believe. They can sod off.

                    • Crystal

                      Please read the comment policy:

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

                    • lady_black

                      The problem, Crystal, is that once grown, the chorionic tissues cannot be re-grown. These are part of the embryo, and are grown by the embryo, in the same way that organs and other tissues develop. They can no more be re-generated than an arm can be regenerated, once amputated. It’s gone forever. The theoretical artificial uterus could thus only be used for pregnancies that were conceived within the artificial uterus.

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks; you’ve just given me another difficulty to work through and I appreciate that. Do you mind if I ask for a source please? BTW I’ve saved your comment in my files so I can reread it for future reference.

                    • lady_black

                      A source? OK, I’ll see if I can find one. This is something I’ve learned through formal education. But frankly dear, where would you think the placenta, umbilical cord, and chorion amnion come from? It comes from the embryo.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta

                    • Crystal

                      Thank you for offering to find the source, and I appreciate the article you’ve given me so far.

                      BTW if you don’t mind my mentioning it, my online name is Crystal rather than “dear”.

                    • lady_black

                      That’s what I called you.

                    • Crystal

                      This is what I was referring to: “But frankly dear”

                  • lady_black

                    No.

                  • Mr. G.

                    I’d say no if keeping it alive involves holding a woman in a state of involuntary servitude. i.e. I do not object to a killing when it’s a necessary component of freeing a person from slavery.

      • Wholovesorangesoda

        Hey would you like to chat with me about this via email?? Sorry for the year long delay in response, lol. My email is rocaao21@aol. Thanks!!

        • Javelina Harker

          Sure. Please give me a few days to write — real life is interfering with more intellectual endeavours. :)

          • Shep Schultz ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

            If Doc Thom gives me permission, and you are willing to pass through a verification rubric, I am willing to share my Email and his with you.

            • Javelina Harker

              That would be excellent, Shep. I’ve kept my eyes open for a rubric prompt but I might have missed it with everything else going on.

              I did find an email on the listed site for Dr. Thomas, but I am waiting for confirmation he’s inclined to have me pester him before I write. People are busy, and I do not have a sense of entitlement to others’ time.

              • Shep Schultz ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

                Look for a reply to an old post of yours from a friend of mine in Lousiana. Initials are BC. I’ll call her. She helps me to keep this clean.
                ******************
                The rubric will make good sense to a quick mind like yours. Please indulge me in the few minutes required to ensure the safety of all parties involved.

              • Shep Schultz ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

                He has never pestered me.
                *****************
                If you wish I can share your Email with him, after you complete my last rubric prompt in your Email from me.
                *****************
                Your philosophical post was on a thread that closed before I could reply.
                *****************
                It was perfect. Nothing could be added to it. You are a very interesting lady.

                • Paul

                  And she seems to be getting better all the time. Disqus can be a strange place to find a strength, wisdom or calling but it does happen :-)

                • Javelina Harker

                  Thank you, Shep.

                  I think perhaps my email to you may have gotten junk filtered, as I’ve responded to everything I’ve seen.

                  Please let me know if we’re golden? :)

          • Wholovesorangesoda

            Thnx!

    • Crystal

      We need to start inventing superior technological alternatives to abortion in order to lessen the “need” from the supply side. Punishing abortion without replacement won’t help us.

      • Wholovesorangesoda

        Yes, we do. However, I have heard if nothing much happening on that front. And artificial wombs still remain to be more out of a sci-fi book than reality.

        • Crystal

          What are your questions about abortion, exactly, and I’ll see if I can answer in my own poor way. I don’t know everything but I’ll do my best.

          • Wholovesorangesoda

            My questions? Well, I think there are a million questions I have but I think there are some definite issues that pro lifers don’t discuss enough, and avoid talking about, which will only need to be talked about eventually. I would like to know when a physical health risk becomes a life risk. Is this a matter or percent or some other measure or what ? And who should be the judge of defining when a risk is too risky.

            • Crystal

              I have no idea how to answer you, but I can tell you what I think:

              1) Physical health becomes life risk – I think for this you need to study ALL the life-of-the-mother cases. Some are not serious and do not require an abortion, like toxemia, AFAIK. Others demand instant intervention, like a molar pregnancy
              2) In regards to it being a matter of a percent, 1% of women – meaning 300-800 women – die from childbirth in a year. And that is in the US alone. In other places the death toll is much higher
              3) Each situation is different; in some cases, if a woman’s life is at risk and laws were passed to protect the unborn persons but nary a word about her, they could cause a woman to die

              Hence the need to answer these questions, and create technological solutions that will deal with these problems. You’re right – the PL movement has been disgustingly dishonest as to these questions. That is one reason out of many why we haven’t gone anywhere.

              • Wholovesorangesoda

                I agree, the general pro life response has been disturbingly disingenuous. Whenever I hear a prolife politician say they are pro life “with absolutely no exception for the life of the mother, because it is never necessary to abort in these situations” I feel like smacking them. How can someone who is not a Dr. Say this and with such pride.I think when it comes to the law prolifers need to maybe even be silent for a while and realize it is better to discuss seriously, thoroughly, and articulately the issue before making up thoughtless sloppy laws and such.

                • Crystal

                  “Whenever I hear a prolife politician say they are pro life “with
                  absolutely no exception for the life of the mother, because it is never
                  necessary to abort in these situations” I feel like smacking them.”

                  I know people who believe like that. I empathise with their position because they are trying to say mums are not more important than babies. I try to be careful personally but I do hope for a day when life-of-the-mother will no longer be an excuse because it won’t be necessary given future technology. Also life-of-the-mother has been used to justify unnecessary abortions and has held science back from inventing ways to save unborn persons in those situations, I think. Yet at this present time life-of-the-mother is something that needs to be seriously taken into account.

                  So, for the present I say, the life that can be saved should be saved, even if that might involve life-of-the-mother (although I hate myself for saying that a lot at times). But if it doesn’t need to it should not, IMO.

                  • lady_black

                    Oh PLEASE, Crystal. Of course the life of the woman is more important than the life of the conceptus. If she dies, it dies. If it dies, her life goes on. There can be other pregnancies.
                    And you aren’t giving much thought to the real babies she already has, either. She owes them a mother… she doesn’t owe them a sibling.
                    That’s a sore spot for me, since I nearly lost my mom to a wanted pregnancy that went very badly. I wanted my mother. I couldn’t care less about a non-existent sibling, and I certainly didn’t need one. I definitely needed my mother.

                    • Crystal

                      I appreciate your sharing your perspective as well, because I understand that sometimes pregnancies are so life-threatening that women *cannot* continue them. I am not against saving the mother’s life in such a situation if there is no other way to do so.

                      I am very sorry you nearly lost your mother; that must have been very hard on you and I am happy she survived.

                      I do believe doctors can judge wrongly in these kinds of situations, in either stopping a life-saving abortion for the mother, or permitting an unnecessary abortion that was deemed life-saving but in reality is not.

                    • lady_black

                      Who cares whether it was life-saving or not, Crystal?? How much threat of harm does a woman need to undergo to satisfy *your* sad feelies?
                      If she will be a vegetable, is that good enough? What if she can’t walk? Can’t work? Is blind? Is profoundly neurologically impaired due to a stroke brought on by toxemia?
                      Unnecessary? Surely you jest.

                  • IrrationalHumanBeing

                    “Also life-of-the-mother has been used to justify unnecessary abortions and has held science back from inventing ways to save unborn persons in those situations, I think.”

                    Wow C!

                    This sounds like you’re suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion. Also, I’m stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what you consider the “female incubators” wishes) into what real world conditions … that the same society does not currently mobilize and allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE. You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT BIRTH … but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES.

                    Wow … all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the “female incubators” and “post-birth” …

                    I can never see there being any constructive dialogue between the pro-life and pro-choice stakeholders as long as the pro-life stakeholders focus on the female body (eliminating her reproductive options and control) versus systemic and institutional realities, overpopulation (because America and our planet’s resources aren’t unlimited), and under what consensus circumstances “potential human life” can or cannot be compassionately terminated … especially when we already know our species has no problem with terminating human life per all the illegal and legal rationales we’ve formed… meaning there is no absolute guarantee to life or even a quality life … never has been and presently isn’t.

                    Our species doesn’t even know what such a concept or reality looks like … all human life and quality of life guaranteed. Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources.

                    I’m sorry, but I have to opine … the PLM is so misguided in how it mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in resources … all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb … and yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by “female incubators” worldwide.

                    • Crystal

                      To be honest, I’m a wee bit surprised. I thought you said this was your *last* comment on PL topics, at least on this forum.

                      “This sounds like you’re suggesting the medical staff (or mother) LIE about needing the abortion.”

                      No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m simply saying that in some cases, the doctor made a mistake and deemed it “life-of-the-mother” when that baby could have been saved. At the same time, I recognise that, for the present, the life that can be saved should be saved. Which sometimes means saving the mother even if that involves an abortion. I do, however, hope for a day that will employ technology to save *both*.

                      “Also, I’m stunned that you would focus on society mobilizing and
                      allocating resources to make sure that fetus is born (regardless of what
                      you consider the “female incubators” wishes) into what real world
                      conditions … that the same society does not currently mobilize and
                      allocate resources to guarantee a middle class or wealthy class LIFE.”

                      I hope I can assure you that I *do not want* to see a society that keeps people alive because they’re not born yet, but does not care for them and simply leaves them in the slums to die after they’re born; in my book that is as anti the prolife ethic as taking their lives *before* they are born. If I have given the impression that I care only for saving unborn persons to the exclusion of all else, I am sincerely saddened, because that is not what I want at all.

                      “You want society to find a way via criminalizing abortion, inventing
                      technology, and mobilizing and allocating resources to GUARANTEE THAT
                      BIRTH … but remain silent about ANY POST-BIRTH GUARANTEES.”

                      Well, actually, did I mention that there would have to be a lot to change in the post-birth world as well? If not, I should have. No, I’m not solely for replacement of abortion via high techs, nor solely for protecting unborn persons via legal means, although that is something I’m not ashamed of. I appreciate the fact you pointed this out, because, if this was going to work, a number of things would have to change or at least improve, as follows:

                      1) Adoption would need to be reformed. The adoption system, at the present time, is in a terrible mess. People who shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children are, and that concerns me.

                      2) Social safety nets would have to be strengthened rather than taken away from women, because if women are going to keep their babies, then they will need help and support in that.

                      3) Contraceptives would have to be improved, strengthened, multiplied and freely available.

                      4) Sex education would also have to be freely available. But it would have to be a type that did not shame people for not fitting into cultural norms.

                      5) Altering our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy would have to be a *must*. We would have to be far more accepting of solo motherhood than we are now. Also, women could no longer be seen as criminals for having sex whilst in possession of a uteri. Furthermore, no woman should have to ever, ever be afraid when she gets pregnant. She would need the security of knowing she can apply for nonjudgmental help, and that she would be aided, and the path to being a parent or adopting out would be made simple for her, rather than hard as it is now.

                      6) Combating the actual causes of abortion would be imperative also. If unborn persons have a right to life, so do born persons. As I mentioned, we would have to deal with poverty, domestic violence, rape culture, rape and incest, etc. Also we would have to channel our greatest services for free education, free healthcare, free help of all types, etc, into poor neighbourhoods, so that young people could have a chance to grow up without living in slums. Any woman who wants to escape an abusive relationship would have to know she could get a hotline. Also any woman who got pregnant would have to go to a healthcare center and have her options explained to her, without judgment. Last but not least we would have to believe rape victims and victims of incest rather than the perpetrators.

                      While I have my opinions I recognise that abortion is not just a moral issue by itself, but a bandaid on a host of other issues. Therefore, simply guaranteeing birth without guaranteeing born citizens are looked after is absurd and wrong because the bandaid would only be changed, not disregarded. In other words, if we dealt with the issues that caused abortion, we would be reducing abortions nearly half-way at least and that would be a good thing. You are correct in saying that if birth was to be guaranteed we would have to change post-birth conditions as well in order to ensure our future generations had a better world to grow up in. I hope I have made myself clear that I don’t hold to the adage “If you’re pre-birth, you’re fine; if you’re pre-school, you can go to hell as far as I’m concerned.”

                      “Wow … all pregnancies must be born no matter what reality going on with the “female incubators” and “post-birth” …”

                      In regards to that, I mentioned the technology that would ensure that unborn persons got to live yet pregnant persons got to decide whether they wanted to carry or not, because I am not for women being made to carry a pregnancy if they don’t wish to. I simply part ways with the legal abortion advocate crowd on the issue of abortion being the best method to achieve this bodily freedom.

                      “Heck, the GOP opposes our government allocating food stamps to already
                      born poor and low-income struggling human beings whom need to eat, plus a
                      whole scope of other life sustaining and empowering resources.”

                      You know what? I *agree* with you on this! I am very much for food stamps and other such social services going to poor people, and I have no problem paying my taxes to ensure that these people get fed.

                      “Our species doesn’t even know what such a concept or reality looks like … all human life and quality of life guaranteed.”

                      That is a world I would like to see a reality, as I explained above.

                      “I’m sorry, but I have to opine … the PLM is so misguided in how it
                      mobilizes and allocates its labor hours and millions of dollars in
                      resources … all of which could be focused 100% on guaranteeing a
                      quality life for already alive human beings outside the womb … and
                      yes, even those unborn fetus they demand be born by “female incubators”
                      worldwide.”

                      I agree. They need to care for everyone. The problem is that they are run by this capitalist mindset that makes poor people into automatic criminals. As for me, I want my resources to help everyone – unborn *and* born alike. Not just one group of people, everyone. I hope we understand each other a little better now.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “To be honest, I’m a wee bit surprised. I thought you said this was your *last* comment on PL topics, at least on this forum.”

                      I love YOU … I also like how spirited some pro-choice stakeholders have been in commenting. So maybe there’s a tad bit of hope …. but only a tad bit, LOL.

                    • Crystal

                      Well, I was surprised because it was so unexpected!

                      I appreciate your love for me. Please know I love you and your partner as well.

                      I hope that I have made it clear that I care about *all* people, not just *unborn* persons; that I care very much about post-birth guarantees for making the world a better place; and that I do not like the idea of ensuring unborn persons are born then left to die because society did not do its job by caring for them, ensuring they had a reasonable standard of living and educating them.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Thank you C:

                      I suspect if the PLM and PCM focused on all three realities for American females and females worldwide, they might achieve some constructive consensus:

                      1. Pre-Conception-Realities – Poverty/Other ISMs
                      2. Pregnancy Risk Realities – Female Autonomy
                      3. Post-Birth-Realities – Poverty/Other ISMs

                      American-ISMs:

                      1. Class-ISM
                      2. Race-ISM
                      3. Sex-ISM
                      4. Homophobia/Heterosex-ISM
                      5. Age-ISM
                      6. Able-ISM
                      7. Group-Think-ISM

                      The PLM seems to focus exclusively on Number 2 realities … the female body/reproductive choice … in total disregard of Realities 1 and 2.

                      PLM seems to not care why females in Realities 1 got to Realities 2 and what her Realities 3 will be for her and any children.

                      PLM seems to be 100% class-biased, as they know high income and wealthy females (or their male partner) will have the money to get a safe abortion in America and other nations, even if abortion were ever illegal and criminalized worldwide.

                      I suspect the PLM is primarily a religious-political movement that defines the female body as serving a god-mandated procreation purpose, where all other roles/needs/realities for females are secondary or to be sacrificed … “motherhood” is absolutely paramount:

                      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1935071270/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_2/192-5299745-0744961?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_r=18T5SEVJMF1YCSNATPQ2&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=1944687662&pf_rd_i=1890626465

                      I suspect if the PLM had absolute political STATE power, then their membership would regress ALL females on the planet back to “domestic motherhood male patriarch appendages” and criminalize all other roles and needs any female seeks outside that absolute patriarchy context or reality — worse than pre-RVW.

                      I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective … as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3.

                      As a MALE … I cannot fathom all the adverse impacts America would experience if procreation wasn’t regulated by individuals and the state via access to free and affordable birth-control and legal and safe abortions (RVW) — to include abstinence:

                      http://www.census.gov/popclock/

                      http://www.usdebtclock.org/

                      I sense PLM refuses to acknowledge this complex reality, refuses to factor it into their conservative patriarchy ideology and politiks, but seek to penalize all females worldwide whom prevent pregnancy (use birth-control) and abort pregnancy (choose abortion). I suspect the PLM wants to restore our Species to some mythological, romanticist, religious-state Vanilla Hegemonic Patriarchy — loathe the cultural progress (attribute role changes) all multicultural human rights movements (including 1-2-3rd wave Feminism) have achieve and continue to achieve.

                      Donald Trump’s rise in the GOP primary has exposed America’s repressed (quarantined) bigotry, now uncaged and embolden by Trump’s hateful unapologetic rhetoric. The violence Trump supporters commit against dissidents attending these rallies should alarm all Americans as to how vitriolic and dangerous times can become for females, minorities, and the poor if America regresses, all exacerbated by the media’s hype of terrorist acts.

                      Unregulated procreation (the ruse agenda of the PLM) is cultural arrogant privilege given the complex domestic and geopolitical realities and challenges America is experiencing today.

                    • Crystal

                      I appreciate your sharing, IHB :)

                      “I suspect the anti-abortion agenda of the PLM is a ruse for a hidden covert patriarchy objective … as suggested by their refusal to reallocate their focus and resources on birth-control during Realities 1, addressing the risks females experience during Realities 2, and addressing the sober harsh realities non-wealthy females and children do and would experience in Realities 3.”

                      Agreed and disagreed.

                      I agree in the way that the PL movement is generally run by abstinence-only, conservative-minded Christian people. I find their sex ethics generally shocking, to be frank. Also, what you say makes sense in this way: making all children be born into a world that will not value their existence once they are born is not a good thing. I simply don’t think the solution to this is abortion. What I do believe is that the solution lies at least partially in addressing the issues you stated, and I quote:

                      “1. Pre-Conception-Realities – Poverty/Other ISMs
                      2. Pregnancy Risk Realities – Female Autonomy
                      3. Post-Birth-Realities – Poverty/Other ISMs”

                      To be honest, I doubt that some of the PL leaders even *care* for unborn persons. Their incremental laws *disgust* me for two reasons: they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law, and they treat pregnant persons as political pawns rather than thinking, feeling people. Furthermore, the views of some of the RW individuals running things behind the scenes, such as theonomy, make me shudder. I might be a strict PLer but I can empathise with the emotional insecurity a woman feels when she has *no* way of controlling her reproductive output on her own terms. I have felt the sick, cold feeling in the pit of my stomach, in my daydreams, as I have imagined what being a married woman with no recourse to prevent pregnancy via contraception must be like. To top it all off with fear of pregnancy and childbirth – ugh. So I despise these politicians and leaders because they make matters worse.

                      I disagree in the sense that the PL movement is focused primarily on saving unborn persons, and that is a good focus to have. I do not think that focus should be shifted away from unborn persons, yet I believe that unborn persons should *not* be the *only* focus they have, as abortion is a *banaid* issue covering up a host of other issues – poverty, etc – as you mentioned. Keeping it focused only on illegalising unborn persons yields only one result – illegalisation – and not only addresses nothing in reality but can also be abused so that pregnant persons receive the short side of the stick. The fact that PLers haven’t really thought through the implications of abuse of pregnant persons is highly troubling to me. Such laws might eliminate the taking of life legally (which is a good thing) but they won’t answer the issues that *cause* women to get abortions, and this is wrong to me. I like to ask my fellow prolifers sometimes, if they are so keen to eliminate this morally unacceptable practice, why would you not want to understand the hows, whys, and wherefores of the action, and once you have the understanding, to eliminate the *reasons* for abortion so that women will not have the incentive to have abortions anymore.

                      I will write up more later. Again, I deeply appreciate your contributions!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “I simply don’t think the solution to this is abortion … they treat unborn persons as political pawns rather than persons in need of protection under the law”

                      By “unborn persons” did you mean “potential human being” … because Roe v Wade establishes “personhood” as the tri-semester/viability outside the womb? You and PLM want to re-litigate that “legal human status” to “conception” … whatever that medical/science reality is? And if that happens, then what? You and PLM ride off into the sunshine to adopt another patriarchy mission, because currently PLM doesn’t care about any female on the planet prior to her getting pregnant and doesn’t care about any female after she gives birth.

                      So this sounds like PLM treats “the entity inside the female womb from conception” as their temporary property/commodity/pawn … but most definitely not their child … a human being they’re willing to invest time into raising and spending money on to ensure non-poverty status. Again, I think PLM doesn’t care about flesh and blood human beings. I think they only care about mandating all females 1) get pregnant, 2) give birth, 3) stay at home and be heterosexual housewives or single-parents, and 4) all males do whatever they want, including be MIA breadwinners and dads … that it’s all abstract obedience for them to a godly-mandate, so they can get heaven-credits when they die. All prolifers don’t want to pay taxes to take care of unwanted children. All prolifers wouldn’t collectively adopt and raise all unwanted children. All prolifers won’t address all pre-conception, during-pregnancy, and post-birth realities.

                      Okay, I’m done. I’m not female. I don’t have a womb. If females in America or worldwide want to permit their bodies and reproductive capacity to be temporarily usurped and control by PLM via state power, then that is their CHOICE. I can already see the GOP, Conservatives, Tea Party preparing their Welfare Queens, Moocher, Lazy & Shiftless, Thugs/Thugetts, Promiscious Deviants denigrations for the new batch of unwanted poor baby “gremilins” … not human beings in the minds and hearts of the PLM … and male religious patriarchs LEADING the PLM with female figureheads, front-persons and mouth-pieces, so as to portray their cause as what most females want in America and world-wide. I call it the Phyllis Schlafly Syndrome.

                      Do you have a child (minor) or children plural Crystal? If not, will you have them? If not, how do you know the realities first-hand as a female of carrying an unwanted pregnancy or even wanted child, or the realities of being a poor white or poor minority female forced to have and raise an unwarranted child? How do you empathize or relate to other females in America or worldwide if you simply want to impose your individual will on them regardless of their own individual will and circumstances? Do you want to punish all females whom get pregnant like I often see the rationale being online — if you have sex, get pregnant, you must have it and raise it! How do you justify wanting to USURP another females body/pregnancy from the period of conception-to-birth … revoke their autonomy/control of their body and what’s in their womb … and justify it as “defending unborn persons” … millions of them already living in wretched poverty and discriminatory circumstances worldwide … crime, gangs, rape/incest, homelessness, all kinds of medical conditions including mental health, wretched foster homes, domestic abuse households, horrific civil limb and life destroy wars, and let’s not even talk about the other sexist poverty horrors in less developed nations.

                      None of these harsh realities can be solved overnight, not in thousands of years, where birth control and abortion seem pragmatic solutions until technology permits procreation outside the womb and all these systemic and institutional worldwide problems are solved. Why cannot PLMs see legal and safe abortion as a permissible reality within the content of a non-utopian world … no mater how morally problematic for PLMs … whom aren’t going to collectively adopt and raise all the world’s unwanted children middle or wealthy class?

              • I’m curious what you mean that “the pro-life movement has been disgustingly dishonest” regarding questions of life-threatening pregnancies? Who are you talking about? I’m not aware of very many pro-life leaders who disagree with my take on this question. Do you mean ignorant activists who haven’t researched it?

                • Crystal

                  Okay, let’s take this from the beginning.

                  Have you considered the potential downsides to making abortion illegal? Wouldn’t there have to be a board to decide which cases are life-threatening enough to allow an abortion? Also life-of-the-mother isn’t really important to some people. She can just roll over and die because it’s God’s will as far as they’re concerned. Also childbirth kills 1% – 300-800 women in the US alone. In other countries the death rate is much higher. Also couldn’t pregnancy kill a child? What about people who would deny chemo to a woman for fear it would harm the unborn person? What about women who will be put in prison if these laws get abused, like chemical endangerment? Do you think a woman should be made by law to go through with a pregnancy even if it will leave her 100% paralyzed? I mean, how are people even going to define abortion? Supposing the mother knows pregnancy could kill her, the board deems incorrectly, and she has an abortion anyway and an abortionist is executed because of it – would you not have thought that people should reconsider instead and say, “We need to study this medical condition more”?*

                  *Not that I’m trying to justify abortion in this case BTW

                  You see, some of these laws can be horribly abused! Just a few of my thoughts.

                  I suppose I do mean ignorant activists and politicians who haven’t researched it, although I think the mainstream PL movement has been dishonest on a lot of things relating to abortion (none of that is meant to be a reflection on you, your friends, the grassroots, or genuine PL leaders who care about life and not so much controlling people). I certainly wasn’t talking about you, or your friends, because you sound like a reasonable bunch. I confess you caught me off-guard with your question; do you mind if I answer it more extensively later, though this is some of what I could come up with off the top of my head.

                  • Yeah, I suppose either a board or at least multiple doctors ought to sign off on cases that are threatening the life of a woman, but it’s not rare for multiple doctors to sign off on controversial decisions.

                    “Life-of-the-mother isn’t really important to some people. She can just roll over and die because it’s God’s will as far as they’re concerned.”

                    Here’s what I suspect: I don’t think you’ve heard actual pro-life leaders say that. I think you’ve seen a few idiots say that. Every side has idiots saying idiotic things. But if my assessment is correct, please don’t say that “the pro-life movement” or “pro-life leaders” say these things. It’s painting with WAY too broad a brush.

                    • Crystal

                      “Yeah, I suppose either a board or at least multiple doctors ought to
                      sign off on cases that are threatening the life of a woman, but it’s not
                      rare for multiple doctors to sign off on controversial decisions.”

                      What do you mean? Do you mean doctors ought to have that kind of power over a woman’s life? Is that really, honestly any different from doctors and a woman having that sort of power over an unborn person’s life? The thought of having a board to determine whether I am permitted such a thing horrifies me for two reasons:

                      1) I wouldn’t do it, even if I was dying, because unborn persons are important; therefore it’s a compromise position
                      2) women are people too and their lives count!

                      “Here’s what I suspect: I don’t think you’ve heard actual pro-life
                      leaders say that. I think you’ve seen a few idiots say that. Every side
                      has idiots saying idiotic things. But if my assessment is correct,
                      please don’t say that “the pro-life movement” or “pro-life leaders” say
                      these things. It’s painting with WAY too broad a brush.”

                      I have relatives who believe this way! Honestly, it scares me that my life could count for so little if I was placed in that kind of situation!

                      As for actual PL leaders, allow me to correct you if I may. For instance, Scott Walker, Wisconsin governor, stated that abortion was not necessary for life-of-the-mother cases. While I realise that life-of-the-mother is an open door to other types of abortions and therefore can appreciate his perspective he would be just as much right to assist poor little baby monkeys being torn from their mother’s arms and used for unethical experiments:

                      liveactionnews.org/scott-walker-informs-megyn-kelly-abortion-not-necessary-to-save-mothers-life/

                      host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/scott-walker-calls-life-of-the-mother-abortion-debate-a/article_282891c5-dfd1-52e0-927d-5deb6394d33c.html

                      http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/scott-walker-calls-abortion-to-save-a-womans-life-a-false-choice-b99553080z1-321141741.html

                      https://www.change.org/p/university-of-wisconsin-cancel-the-unethical-torture-and-killing-of-baby-monkeys (this petition mentions him by name in one of the updates)

                      Doug Phillips, Biblical Patriarchy leader, stated that ectopic abortions were immoral, never mind the mother, and here’s an article to prove my point; while I get where he’s coming from on ectopic pregnancies the life that can be saved should be saved, I think:

                      http://www.ethicsdaily.com/christian-leader-rejects-abortion-to-save-a-womans-life-cms-12978

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/2010/06/vision-forum-samaritan-ministries-take-extreme-pro-life-position-on-ectopic-pregnancies/

                      Doug Phillips used to be highly respected by homeschoolers until his latest scandal. He makes me angry, that man, because of what he did. It’s a shocking story if you care to read!

                      The worst part about this is these guys are (or in the case of Doug Phillips, were) respected men in conservatism, although DP wasn’t as well known as Scott Walker. Scott Walker was loved and lauded and this is what he said!

                      From what I have seen, there seems to be this shift in prolife thinking towards stopping abortions for life-of-the-mother. I will keep digging and keep trying to back up what I say with evidence. I apologise if I came across too harsh or two strong, but I have been a critical observer of the mainstream PL movement for years, and seeing the many failings of PL individuals in leadership in conservativism (and in some cases, PL leaders) makes me have very little trust in the PL movement at this time, although if I find I have assessed the PL movement incorrectly I am greatly open to correction on the point, especially as you seem to know very caring and decent people. So please, tell me more about these kind, decent prolifers! However, I do know of PL people who are causing the PL movement to have a bad name; like, for instance, have you ever heard of Doug Wilson? If not, I’ll be happy to tell you about it.

                    • “What do you mean? Do you mean doctors ought to have that kind of power over a woman’s life? Is that really, honestly any different from doctors and a woman having that sort of power over an unborn person’s life?”

                      That’s certainly not a neutral way to phrase the question, but okay…

                      Here’s what I mean. A close friend of mine has a sister who struggles with psychiatric and drug problems. She recently claimed to have become pregnant, and that the pregnancy was life-threatening so she was having an abortion. When my friend asked about her condition, her sister said that she hadn’t seen one doctor. She just had some pain and did some online research. I don’t think she gets to have an abortion and justify it by calling it a life-threatening pregnancy unless a medical professional who knows what he or she is talking about actually diagnoses it.

                      I think if abortion became illegal except to save a mother’s life, many people would want to claim that their pregnancy is life-threatening when that’s not the case. A dishonest doctor could easily do the same thing if there is no accountability. So having a few doctors sign off that yes, this is a life-threatening pregnancy and there is no way to save the child is SUPER reasonable, given the gravity of the situation.

                    • Crystal

                      I can appreciate your reasons for caution. Life should not be taken unnecessarily and I agree that life-of-the-mother can be horribly abused, hence taking more innocent lives than necessary. This is something we have to guard vigilantly against, I think. So many doctors throw out these life-of-the-mother reasons where the unborn person could have been saved as well; it’s an abuse of power and it needs to be treated as such.

                      However, the objection my friend had was that the life-threatening condition *was* genuine, that red tape can take a long time, and that in this particular scenario she might need drastic action *right now*.

                      Like, for instance, this story:

                      http://abcnews.go.com/Health/pregnant-dominican-teen-center-abortion-debate-dies-delayed/story?id=17044066

                      It was chemo, not technically an abortion, but they delayed it for fear it would kill the unborn person. I don’t agree with that. Such laws can be abused. If there was such a board in place and a woman lost her life due to the situation not being deemed serious enough to have such drastic action aren’t they responsible for her life?

                      To be honest, I don’t think that there really should be such a thing in place at all. I think instead that high techs for dealing with general cases should come first then technological solutions to dealing with life-of-the-mother cases. Then we’re looking after both. I can’t imagine a society that bans abortion and provides no technological alternative lasting very long, given the moral climate we have today. Also the idea of a board, composed of men, holding my little female life in the balance, sounds nightmarish to me.

                    • Crystal

                      Another thing – doesn’t little caution open the door to lots of abortions being practiced again?

                    • It’s not weird to me that there are people who call themselves pro-life that give the rest of us a bad name. I’m challenging you in the area of implying that this is a large segment of the pro-life movement or pro-life leaders. The two people you named don’t demonstrate that. Not even close.

                      I think Scott Walker actually didn’t know what he was talking about, and multiple pro-life people, myself included, stated corrections THAT NIGHT.

                      I’ve never heard of Doug Wilson.

                    • Crystal

                      I do not believe my criticisms of PL thought and practice are entirely without merit as I have been researching the topic of the failings of conservative thought and practice for years and could eventually become an expert in the field, unfortunately I never got to answer your question. I do care about getting my facts straight. Could you tell me some of the folks you know well in the PL movement, as I appreciate hearing another side of the story, please?

                    • Take a look at our advisory board: http://equalrightsinstitute.com/about/staff. I’m fairly close with everyone on this list.

                      I’m either friends or acquaintances with most of the people actually leading pro-life organizations.

  • Wholovesorangesoda

    I really think calling each other trolls and sneaky and so forth is fruitless. Nothing good will come of it. I don’t know shifty or her/his position on abortion but I think he/she is aware that I am not prochoice but have some concerns about the prolife position that I think need to be seriously discussed.they have not been rude to me so that’s what I’ll go by. Personal stabs at people take us off topic.

  • Shifty

    Josh Braham, please heed my warning. You have a decent site going here and Disqus user PJ4 is not an appropriate asset if your site wishes to maintain credibility. It would be wise if you didn’t allow her to use your site as a catalyst for her trollish and impudent behavior. Best wishes, a concerned blogger.

    • williamdiamon

      haha, You said “concerned blogger”, but you meant “concern troll”, that was funny.

      • Shifty

        I have renounced my beef with Pj4. I will also be deleting that comment to Josh momentarily.

      • Crystal

        Williamdiamon, please don’t say such things. This is the kind of speech that could get you in serious trouble here. Please read Josh Brahm’s commenting policy before continuing:

        blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

  • Shifty

    I have asked Josh to ban you for your imprudent and trollish behavior. Please go back to LAN and continue to immaturely verbally assault and bait pro-choicers. This isn’t the place to dump your trash.

    • Crystal

      Shifty, could you please do something for me? Could you send Josh another email explaining that PJ has decided to settle down and is at present not committing behaviour worthy of banning? It would mean so much to me if you could do this for me, as I appreciate valuable insight from all angles.

      • Shifty

        I didn’t email Josh. I posted a comment on this thread asking him to ban her but I deleted it. I cannot even really begin to explain how I became so vexed with her and her friends, well, I most certainly can but it all seems so senseless and futile at this point.
        People like Wild Bird are why most pro-choice people will never hear your side out.
        I have no real world inclination to ever have an abortion but I think we all can agree that this topic is taxing and vitriolic.
        Real quick bio of me, I was once a militant pro-choice advocate but I’ve come to acknowledge that we all start in our mom’s wombs. I’m not pro-life or pro-abort as so many people like to say.

        I’ve got to attend to some things, but I mean to address your other two comments as soon as the time is allotted to me.

        • Crystal

          Hugs. I understand now. It’s okay. Being abusive to one another won’t help matters, I don’t think. Keep thinking these things through, always. Never be afraid to ask questions and read here, all right?

          • Shifty

            Thank you. :)

  • Shifty

    I did. Love is in my heart. You honestly don’t believe that you are the epitome of normal baiting people the way that you do, do you? As far as me being a bully, I learned from the best, from militant and fanatical pro-life trolls like yourself.
    You have plenty of places to post, why must you feel the need to pollute decent pro-life sites?

  • Shifty

    You sit on one of the most militant pro-life sites day after day and viciously attack people who wish to dissent against your movement.
    Any decent arguement you make is invalidated when you start making bogus ad hominem attacks against people.
    The way that mock people’s intellect then demand that the user disengages you. This leaves people feeling like there is no closure, hence the anger and resentment towards you and your friends. Get it now, pJ4?
    I’m not a militant pro-life fanatic. I’ve never really disclosed my stance to you.
    I doubt your sincerity with your request for a truce, seeings how I vehemently disagree with your presence here on this site and I think that you’re masquerading to garner sympathy from regular posters here…….
    I accept your truce but you need to understand that Wild_Bird is off limits and I’ll deal with him as I see fit.

    • williamdiamon

      – ” Any decent argument you make is invalidated when you start making bogus ad hominem attacks against people. ” –
      Speak for yourself.

      Are you afraid to debate her yourself? Is that why you’ve come to this thread, whining about her? As you’ve said, you haven’t disclosed your own sentiments to her, yet ask everyone else to ignore her…is that your style of debate, hiding?

      • Shifty

        She has colonized enough sites, but it’s as I told you earlier, I’m deleting the comment to Josh in good faith of truce.

        She can handle herself William, she doesn’t need your divine intervention, darlin’.
        Like Wild_Bird, PJ4 could excercise a bit more in the self restraint department in dealing with sensitive issues.

  • Shifty

    Well hello, many a crickets have come and gone in response to my comments to you this past week.
    Don’t you think you’re the last person who should be posting about not loving the opposition? Lulz

  • Shifty

    Reality Check is basically Live Action New’s fraternal twin sister. Both sites are hijacked by militant shills.
    If you honestly cannot read Wild_Bird’s comments and see the disrespect he has in his tone for people he doesn’t even know then I cannot help you in understanding the disrespect that he projects on a daily basis.
    He over stepped a line, more so than you…… And that’s saying a lot.

    • Guest

      RH and LAN do indeed have some things in common. But only the former has the words “reality check” in its title despite publishing Amanda Marcotte. That holds trump as far as I’m concerned.

  • Shifty

    I misspoke about the pro-life comment and edited my response. What constitutes creepy or insulting to pj4? You shamelessly and relentlessly blog about this sensitive topic almost 24/7 and expect some sort of submission from persons who disagree with you.
    It matters not what I’ve read about you or who I am, you need to know the injustices that you do to your movement when berating people. Your friends cheering you on is of no consequence to your overinflated sense of superiority in the realm of biological knowledge.
    I accepted the truce, but you must first understand that in being intwined with this controversial topic, you must hear from a neutral source what your friends won’t tell you.

  • Thomas

    My major concern are all of the militant “pro-choice” websites assassinating the collective character of pro-lifers based on the actions of one disturbed man.

    There is no doubt in my mind that mental illness was a contributing factor so I agree with your view Mr Brahm.

    The issue now is not to feed into the disparaging commentary of those whose only goal is to paint pro-lifers as violent. It is highly amusing IMO how desperate the militant pro-choicer has become to attempt to indict our entire movement.

    • Javelina Harker

      Well expressed, Thomas.

      A few months ago, after the Roof murders, I wrote a tongue-in-cheek comment about how (if I were Satan), my instructions to my minions would include a few well-placed nudges to some fragile mentally ill people, so they would go up a clock tower and snipe off PP clinics — because that would be such a feast for the liberal media.

      Dear does not represent whites. He does not represent men. He does not represent the mentally ill. He does not represent Christians, conservatives, or gun owners. He has represented himself, and will see consequences himself.

    • DarkCougar555

      It is highly amusing IMO how desperate the militant pro-choicer has become to attempt to indict our entire movement.

      Yeah, I noticed that as well. It’s mind boggling when they insisted that it’s not all Muslims are territors. Yet, they don’t mind to put all pro-lifers in one box.

      It’s not much different than they think it’s okay to mock virgins but it’s not okay to mock “sluts”. I recall how numerous people got pissed off at one atheist doctor because he tried to help JW patients with their wish wills at hospital. It’s pretty screwed up…

    • Jim H

      Thomas:
      If you are talking about truly “militant pro-choice websites”, they are likely frequented almost exclusively by a militant pro-choicer crowd, who didn’t like you to begin with. You were never going to convert them anyway. Why do you get upset when obvious militants act militantly?

      • Crystal

        I think it is because Thomas has feelings and he can get very hurt by harsh commentary.

        • Jim H

          Perhaps Mr. Sensitive should refrain from comments like:
          “You’re conversing with a maroon. We suspect s/he still lives in mommy’s basement.”
          If he did, I might have a bit more sympathy about his feelings.

          • Crystal

            Good point!

            Josh Brahm won’t allow that kind of comment on his site. As for myself I refuse to engage in them.

            What’s your opinion on the PL movement at the moment? Do you think its language about abortion and the people doing them had anything to do with the shooter’s actions or do you think the two are entirely separate things?

            • Jim H

              I say I think the shooter was a nut case. However, I also think you cannot make statements that call abortion murder, baby slaughtering, genocide, etc. or compare it to the Holocaust or slavery and then just wash your hands (like Pilate) when someone acts like it really is what you describe it as and takes a personal direct violent action to stop it.

              Such language is emotive and relies on connotation; I.e., the implied meaning or significance of a word or phrase beyond, and often with little regard for its actual definition. The whole purpose of using such language is to evoke an emotional response to influence the hearer a certain way. The stronger the word used the more emotional the response.

              Such emotive language promotes activity in the amygdala, an area of the brain that helps generate emotions. It also results in less activity in the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that regulate emotions, and is responsible for most of our higher mental functions like abstract thinking.

              Adrian Raine, a Penn Integrates Knowledge professor in the Departments of Criminology Psychiatry and Psychology, and his colleagues demonstrated that when presented with emotionally provocative stimuli, wife abusers showed greater activity in the amygdala and less activity in the prefrontal cortex compared to non-abusers. This suggests that rather than using violence at home in a planned, conscious way to control their spouses, some abusers instead over-react to mildly provocative stimuli with hair-trigger tempers that are partly predicated on brain-based emotional over-reactivity and reduced ability to regulate that emotion.

              If you refer to something in as strong of terms as those I mentioned above those words are intended to evoke strong emotional responses like anger, outrage, etc. and understand the double whammy it puts on the way the brain functions. Is it really such a stretch to assume they could evoke violence, at least in some people.

              Sorry it to me so long to answer. I wanted to be thorough in my response. I apologize if I overdid it.

              • I think this is the most reasonable way to make the argument, I just don’t think it holds to scrutiny. If pro-life advocates are responsible for the Planned Parenthood shooting because of “emotionally powerful language,” then nobody can condemn any kind of evil or injustice. Why? Because any statement condemning anything could make us culpable for a murder if we stated our opinion openly and a crazy person just happened to be present.

                Ironically, this would mean that if pro-choice advocates were right about us being culpable for this shooting, then they are taking an awful risk. Think about it. If a pro-choice person decides to retaliate with violence after hearing those pro-choice people talk, then the pro-choice advocates would then be culpable for inciting violence.

                My conclusion is that everyone should peacefully oppose both injustice and censorship. If we aren’t afraid of where the truth will lead, then there is no need to attempt to silence people who disagree with us.

                • Crystal
                • Jim H

                  Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I’m not saying people should not speak the truth, only that they be aware of how they express that truth. There is a difference between that an abortion kills a living human fetus or you can say that it is the deliberate cold blooded, torturous murder of a little baby. The first is quite true and the language used is technically correct as well. The latter is much more emotionally evocative. It is also incorrect from a technical perspective. If you check a medical dictionary, fetus is the appropriate term prenatally, baby only applies after birth, a dictionary defines murder as illegal killing, deliberate and cold blooded assumes we can know other peoples feelings, intentions, etc.

                  It does not require that a person be crazy for them to react violently. People will resort to violence when they feel justified in doing so. For example, if a terrorists sacrifices his/her own life for a cause, he/she believes what they are doing is justified and even God’s will. We condemn them. The Old Testament is full of stories where the Israelites conquered and killed countless men women and children in Canaan. Believers don’t condemn those killings, because they believe it was God’s will. They just disagree on who is on God’s side. Also, men go off to war to serve their countries. They feel justified in deliberately killing other men who are also serving their countries. We consider them heroes.

                  I do believe that pro-choice people have the same obligation as pro-life people to take responsibility for how they say what they say. I see a problem with the way both sides use language to stereotype and demonize the other.

                  By using “pro-choice” and “pro-life” both sides try to play on feeling about widely held values such as liberty and freedom. This, of course, suggests that the opposition side must be “anti-choice” or “anti-life”. Pro-lifers like to describe their opponents as “pro-abortion” or “pro-abort”. Pro-choicers like to refer to their opponents as “forced birthers”.

                  Such language seems to indicate that the people who uses it have trouble dealing with ambiguity. They seem to have a tendency to stereotype people and treat see them as caricatures of real people. They appear to be unaware, or unconcerned with the fact reflect the fact that real people hold complex views on issues like abortion. Numerous polls have shown that most people are not in favor of the extreme positions where abortion is allowed/not allowed, in all/any circumstance. Most fall somewhere in the middle. I would say that they see abortion as a very serious matter that requires some kind of justification. They don’t necessarily agree with what that justification should be.

                  I agree that that everyone should peacefully oppose both injustice and censorship, but stereotypes and demonization do not serve justice. They serve a mob mentality. I also think if you want justice, you need to be aware and responsible, and self-censor your rhetoric.
                  In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche commented that when fighting monsters we need to be careful not to become monsters. I think that is still good advice.
                  I also want to want to thank you for providing a forum where people seem to be expected to be civil and reasonable. That is pretty rare for the internet.
                  Kudos.

    • Eponymous1

      It’s interesting how differently the left treats Islamist shootings with explicitly ideological motive, and the one by that deranged guy who wasn’t even affiliated with any Christian or pro-life group. In the former they try to deny the obvious and refuse to admit any connections as long as possible (my news feed that day went from “anti-government militia shooting” — their hearts’ truest desire — to “workplace violence” to, finally and reluctantly dragged by the overwhelming evidence, to “terrorist shooting.” Even then, the Administration then threatens Americans’ speech, saying they’ll criminalize criticism.

      But when one lone, unaffiliated kook shoots people at a Banned Parenthood, all Christians, all pro-lifers, and the entire right are accused as if they’d pulled the trigger themselves.

      • megajess

        Totally agree. Just imagine if the San Bernadino muslims had shot up a planned parenthood clinic. What would the leftists have said? Probably not much.

    • James

      No doubt about it. As time goes by I see nothing but a downturn in society as the blood continues to be spilled and rhetoric being more volatile in order to hide the screams in the womb! Imagine what it would be like to amplify that scream so the merciless abortionist can be condemned, with justification. Then it would end? No. Until reckoning day..there will be the evolutionist attitude of LESS than human!

  • Shifty

    TL;DR, but k
    Where’s Snark? She is too funny!

  • Rhetorical Brutality

    Funny how regressives’ vaunted “tolerance” and “diversity” flies out the nearest window the split second they encounter diversity of opinion, isn’t it?

  • Shifty

    Think whatever you’d like toots. Sorry, I’m not a lesbian.

  • Shifty

    That’s the one.

  • Shifty

    Earlier, I mentioned the volatile nature of the topic that you champion. Your vindictive nature is the breaking point for many people.
    You have irresponsibly lied about others. It irks you when people lie about you, I take it.
    I think we’re making progress and it makes me proud.
    Without your supporters, would you have the sand to do what it is that you do?

    But, I’m not upset that you have supporters, no.
    I hate what you do Pj4 but I respect your passion and ask that you give the people that you’ve insulted so, more benefit of the doubt. Thanks.
    I can’t apologize for something I have no recollection of doing. Lulz

  • Shifty

    Yes you have lied about people, do you think you would get such a instinctive response from people if you didn’t?
    I have read and even commented on RH and they make some solid points but yeah, they banned me for playing devils advocate.
    What does this screenshot have to do with anything? It’s irrelevant and I find it absolutely reprehensible that you’ve posted a Disqus user’s picture that has nothing to do with this conversation. It’s always one step foward, ten steps back with you.

    • Crystal

      Shifty, with all due respect, please STOP the name-calling and READ Josh Brahm’s commenting policy. Such offensive speech is not permitted on this site. I believe you have very interesting points to make but they must be made respectfully and according to his rules:

      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

      • Shifty

        Please point out the comments where I have broken his TOS and I will gladly revise them.

      • Shifty

        Sorry Crystal.

        • Crystal

          That’s okay. I had a dear friend banned and I don’t want the same happening to you. I know you will contribute greatly if you read the comment policy and abide by the rules :)

          • Shifty

            Is Josh pretty forgiving about first time offenses?

            • Crystal

              I can’t exactly speak for him, but I think so if you’re willing to change your ways and not do them again.

              ERI is a very young organisation, a fledgling in fact. As of present he doesn’t have much time to comment and he is keeping it strict due to time constraints, but hopes to debate a little better in the future :)

              • Shifty

                Got it, thanks. What’s ERI? I really really like this site. I don’t want to mess it up. :/

                • Crystal

                  Equal Rights Institute, and this site is a branch of it.

            • I deleted a lot of the exchange that was bickering about what other supposedly did at other sites. I left a lot of the exchange that strayed off topic but was still a good example of people being kind and curious about each other. Not banning you, Shifty.

              • Shifty

                Hi Josh. I was wondering why you deleted my comments to Javelina Harker?

    • Truth. I think she thinks you’re me. Obviously you’re not. Sorry if you’re getting harassed for this.

      • Shifty

        No, I want to apologize to you. I’m not sure that she thinks I’m you. I’m not trying to start a blog war but I feel like what I’ve been saying to her needs to be said.
        I’m already feeling like a great weight has been lifted off my spirit.

  • Crystal

    Yeah, RH Reality Check are confounded mean to prolife people. I will never comment there. It is such a hateful and charged atmosphere.

    You ever commented there, PJ?

    Also, I wish we could talk about this issue at depth a little more. Question for starters, PJ – what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why? Also how do you respond when people say you are being inconsistent by advocating for peace? Would sincerely appreciate an answer to the questions if that’s okay.

    • Guest

      what do you think of the claim that Operation Rescue is a terrorist group and why?

      There are three different organizations commonly known as Operation Rescue:

      – The original (now defunct) organization, led by Randall Terry and later Keith Tucci, best known for its sit-in demonstrations at abortion clinics.

      – Operation Save America, led by Flip Benham until 2014. It was designated as the successor to the original group, but soon expanded its scope to opposing homosexuality and Islam. OSA sometimes still refers to itself as Operation Rescue or Operation Rescue National.

      – Operation Rescue West, now known simply as Operation Rescue, led by Jeff White and now Troy Newman. Operation Rescue West began as an affiliate of the original Operation Rescue, and has continued to focus strictly on abortion. Newman owns the trademark to the Operation Rescue name.

      See:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Operation_Rescue
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Save_America
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rescue_%28Kansas%29
      http://www.operationrescue.org/about-us/history/

      I don’t think any can be considered a terrorist group.

  • Crystal

    Hi, I remember you! And I like crickets :)

    How’s it going?

  • Crystal

    With all due respect, PJ, I think *you* also need to read Josh Brahm’s commenting policy because these kinds of arguments do nothing for our cause. This is a safe space and needs to be treated as such. Quarrels are not liked here:

    blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

    I respect you but I want you to be able to comment here in freedom and peace and this is why I say these things to you.

  • Crystal

    Oh dear.

    Josh has been away. I fear he will not be pleased when he reads the confounded mess his forum has become. I’ll try to sort it out as much as I can to protect folks from being banned:

    TRUMPET BLAST – ATTENTION FOLKS!

    READ THIS BEFORE COMMENTING:

    blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

    • Thanks, Crystal. I knew there were a lot of comments going on, and just chose not to try to moderate it over the weekend, choosing time with my family instead. But yeah, 200+ comments is a lot! I’ll go over everything today.

      I’m guessing most comments or threads that will be removed will be removed because they’re off-topic.

      I will only delete comments or ban people for what they say on our blog. I’m not investigating claims about other blogs.

      • Crystal

        Thank you!

        You think I tried well then?

        Also another point, will you delete comments where I’m trying to calm things down, and where we actually discuss the topic of abortion and have civil conversations?

  • Crystal

    I remember we met once, on TFA. You were being ganged up on and I was kind to you. Remember that incident? BTW I’m against trolling. I’m a frequent commenter here and I care about Josh’s rules being followed a lot.

  • Crystal

    If I’ve mistaken your identity for that of another person I owe you an apology :(

    It’s just that I spoke to someone who had a picture and a name very similar to yours.

  • Crystal

    That was me! And yes, it is The Friendly Atheist site. I’m not a troll and if I made a mistake on your identity I apologise.

    • Shifty

      Ignore this drama loving troll.

      • Crystal

        I love all people, Shifty. You and her. Advocates for legal abortion and my fellow prolifers. I want peace and respect in commenting forums so I try to set a good example.

        BTW that is the kind of comment that could get you in trouble – name-calling is not permitted on this site. It’s a safe space where prolifers and advocates for legal abortion can *respectfully* debate and discuss their differences, and hopefully learn from each other. I share my friend’s mission. There is too much hostility between the two sides already.

        • Shifty

          Thank you Crystal.

          • Crystal

            That’s okay.

          • Crystal

            Do you think there is any difference between calling out the practice of abortion in strong language and demonising the people who have and perform abortions?

            • Shifty

              No, this is a loaded question. Can you explain it a little differently. Sorry

              • Crystal

                Okay.

                What’s the difference between saying:

                1) Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible

                2) You’re a fan of genocide

                Which statement is more productive?

                • Shifty

                  Number 1 I would say. Can you see why being called a pro-abort, a slaver, a ghoul and a Nazi could make people so resentful of the PL movement?
                  It’s all emotion from many of them screaming it at people, that is why the abortion conversation in this country is going nowhere.
                  I hope this was a better answer. :)

                  • Crystal

                    I am trying to stick with Number 1, your answer is fair and I agree with it :)

                    Condemning the ACTION is not a point I can compromise on. It must be spoken of in the strongest of terms.

                    The PEOPLE who practice the action must be shown understanding and love even while we deplore the practice.

                    So I try to be careful about my language, not to compromise nor to cause unnecessary offence when I can reach someone for the truth.

                    Read Josh’s articles. They are thought-provoking and I am a great admirer of him :) You won’t feel hated as you read, I can assure you :)

                    • Shifty

                      Crystal, forgive me but your summation is very dizzying and foreign to me. You should never stop condemning the action, you believe that it is wrong to legally abort the unborn and I unequivocally respect this opinon. I am almost brought to tears by the innocence of your comment.

                    • Crystal

                      How is my summation foreign to you? I don’t understand, but if you wouldn’t mind explaining I could get where you’re coming from a little better.

                    • Shifty

                      Your opinion occupies disparate words of thought from the vast majority of your fellow pro-lifers.
                      Keep up the good work. And do you think you could tell me how to make the guest posters comments?

                    • Crystal

                      In other words, you’re saying I think through things in contrast to just shouting “baby-killer”, I take it? Thank you for the praise :)

                      “I am almost brought to tears by the innocence of your comment.”

                      Can you explain that one, please?

                      How to make a guest comment: Type in a comment. Where it says, “I’d rather post as a guest” with a little check button, you tick the button and you don’t have to sign in. Then you can comment as a guest. Try it if you like and see how that works, and if you don’t find my explanation helpful I don’t mind trying to tell you again :)

                    • Shifty

                      Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. And you’re welcome.
                      Thanks for the guest tip, I probably should refrain from using this feature at anytime on any sites :P

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks in abundance!

                      I’m not so sure what was so innocent about my comments though, if you wouldn’t mind expounding. I’m not trying to be vain or harp on too much but I really would like to understand.

                    • Crystal

                      In case I didn’t make it clear I deeply appreciate your praise. Please don’t feel teary-eyed over my words. Speaking the truth in love needs to be normal standard procedure for all truth-bearers.

                      I’m sorry for asking so many questions but I wanted to be certain you were praising me and not upset at me. In short I did not want to misread your comments. Thanks so much. However, if I have misread you I apologise. If I have not I appreciate!

                    • Shifty

                      I was praising you. This topic makes so many people hard heartened on both sides. It’s refreshing to read your level headed insights.

                    • Crystal

                      Well, we live and learn :)

                      There was a time I had a deep hatred in my heart for all women who had had abortions and was appalled when prolifers reached out to one in love and forgiveness. Now that I have read why women do it I am not inclined to be so harsh as I once was although I still consider their action to be morally reprobate. Also talking to advocates for legal abortion has stretched my horizons like you would not believe.

                      You see, even before I came across Josh’s site I had these beliefs. But he has strengthened them. And I am not the only one who cares for these things. If you hang around ERI website you will find that Josh and his team believe the way I do – deplore the action but love the person. So if ever you want to talk to Josh about this stuff feel free, I’m sure he’ll try to answer you though he is a *very* busy man. He was kind enough to let me know he *couldn’t* answer all my questions before he stopped responding to me but I hope he’ll continue writing back again :*)

                    • Shifty

                      Excellent. Talking to pro-life advocates has stretched my horizons too. Obviously not all of the pro-life advocates but there are genuine ones out there, like you and Josh and some of the other commenters I’ve read here in the last two days.
                      I guess my disconnect is that I cannot seem to grasp why you would have hated women who chose abortion.
                      I know a couple of women who have had one and although I certainly was not happy and applauding their choice, I certainly felt no hate towards them.
                      Josh seems really unique and understanding, like you. ;)

                    • Crystal

                      Thank you for the compliments :)

                      That Javelina woman seems fair. It’s a pity I never got to speak to her. If you could encourage her to come onto this site again I do hope for the chance of a word with her!

                      Also Josh Brahm, Wholovesorangesoda, Guest, Acyutananda, and a few others are nice people that you can have reasonable conversations with about this topic. They won’t scream at you and will disagree in love.

                      “I guess my disconnect is that I cannot seem to grasp why you would have hated women who chose abortion.”

                      I was a very young person at the time. Since I was aware of the barbaric nature of the act, and I listened to and read what prolifers had to say on abortion and other life issues a lot, I felt horror at the thought that anyone could do something so dastardly towards an innocent child. I have never lost that horror, but that feeling of repugnance transferred into hating women who had abortions. As I was ignorant of the many desperate circumstances many women who commit such an act find themselves in, I perceived them to be cold-blooded murderers who had killed their children because they were selfish, and I believed that such people deserved very harsh treatment. However, as I continued to read and educate myself via feminist theory and pro legal abortion literature as well as prolife literature, both that and the tokophobia disorder I am recovering from helped to change my mind on hating the people having abortions, though not on the act itself, long before I began speaking to advocates for legal abortion. And talking to these people who disagreed with me on this issue cemented the view I was predisposed towards, that the prolife movement was in dire need of reform. By that time my hatred for women having abortions was long gone.

                    • Shifty

                      You were right to no longer hate a woman who has an abortion. Hate is what causes a woman to abort her own offspring in the first place. We don’t fix it with more hate, or at least we shouldn’t.

                    • Crystal

                      That is a fair answer, IMO. The only way this moral dilemma can be solved in our society is through love. If it’s true what you say about hate and abortion, then prolifers who hate people who disagree with them are no better off.

                    • Crystal

                      At ERI they believe in treating those they disagree with with kindness. Anyone who insults on this website is warned. If they persist, they are shown out the door. His rules are strict for a reason. You will be treated well here, and Josh and his team love to think through issues in a reasonable fashion rather than insulting those they disagree with.

                    • Shifty

                      Thanks for the overview Crystal. I look forward to many informative and constructive conversations here.

                    • Crystal

                      So do I :)

                      What’s your opinion? Do you think that saying “the act of abortion is murder and morally repugnant” has any relationship to what this shooter did, or do you think something else drove him to it? Do you think it was calling advocates for legal abortion “nazis” and “baby-killers” that pushed this guy over the edge? I’d really appreciate your opinion on this, as I don’t see how calling out an action and rationally explaining the similarities between abortion and slavery could result in hatred and murder, but I can see how defamatory and highly inflammatory language against a person or a group of people might encourage such actions.

                    • Shifty

                      Many pro-life advocates will choose to use the most inflammatory language they (like Thomas, PJ4 ect) can to incite a reaction from people who are both pro-life and pro-life.

                    • Shifty

                      I think pro-lifers are going to politicize this until an all out civil war is wadged. It’s the only way to end the debate once and for all.

                    • Crystal

                      How to relate to those who are rude to you on the Internet or in real life:

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/

                      See, Josh has advice on a great many topics. He is a very smart man I’ve found :)

                    • Crystal

                      My apologies, I’ve repeated myself and I saw you’d already answered my question about the PL movement and this guy. Very humbly sorry!

                    • Shifty

                      Hi Crystal, sorry about my absence, where were we?

                    • Crystal

                      <3 Awww …

                      I do my best, is all I can say :)

  • Crystal

    Yes, it is a dear friend of mine named Josh Brahm. He has a commenting policy that I think you should read:

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/

    He won’t be happy when he sees his rules have not been followed but so far as I know he tries to be fair :(

    He is a stickler for politeness and pleasant discourse on this subject.

    Just curious about whether you comment at Live Action, and no, that’s not to stalk you but because I wonder if guests are permitted. I tried writing to Live Action to see if they could permit guest commenting at least two months ago and as of yet there has been no reply. Do you know of any way I might reach them so they respond back quickly?

    Thanks for coming here and I understand your suspicion, you’re not to feel bad as it’s worth being suspicious of the identity of everyone on the Internet in order to keep safe. I would never stalk anyone online either, it’s bad manners.

    Now to conversation time:

    What do you think of this sad incident and do you personally believe prolife language is inflammatory when describing abortion and the people who do it?

  • Crystal

    Please stay on this site, and don’t be afraid to come back here. Josh will not tolerate rudeness from either side. He is a kind and caring man and he wants people to reason rationally about the subject.

    “I don’t believe the pro lifers are responsible in any way for what
    happened at PP. Those with another agenda, used it and other
    horrendous acts to deflect away from pro life and some pro abortion
    people that shone a bright light on the disgusting baby parts for
    lambourghinis acts of PP workers. They deflected from that and pushed a
    anti gun agenda to boot.”

    I agree that prolifers are not generally responsible for the shooting. In fact they came out and roundly condemned it. But I was informed by advocates for legal abortion that prolifers who condemn abortion and the people performing them yet refuse to be violent are inconsistent. I can understand when it comes to people but the action itself is worthy of condemnation.

    Whether PP are selling or donating does not matter to me. They are in the wrong when they take the life of an innocent unborn person and place it under the guise of “health-care”. I fail to see how it is healthcare to take another person’s life away from them, despite my many discussions with advocates for legal abortion on the subject.

    Anti-gun agenda? How did they do that one?

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, will bring you some philosophy I wrote up on the matter:

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637

    You might find it of interest. Hoping you will have a good day and thanks for acknowledging me :)

  • Crystal

    I like you, PJ, and I find your thoughts fascinating and interesting if you wouldn’t mind sharing more with me and coming back here, and to SPL more often. You sound cool :)

  • Crystal

    I haven’t commented on RH either. I’m a guest. But I’ve seen how vicious they can be.

    I try to be nice. I love people and care about listening to what they have to say.

    “What is it that OR has done to be called a terrorist group?”

    Well! Saying abortion is murder (which is true). Saying doctors who perform abortions are murderers and the women who do them are too (I say caution with this because we want to reach people and help them understand rather than accusing them right out the gate). Then we don’t advocate for violence. I got asked if I would be so kind to a nazi and then when I said no I’m informed prolifers don’t really believe that ZEFs are truly persons because they won’t be violent.

    My responses to such faulty logic:

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2387892637

    blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2393898255

    blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2389713979

  • Crystal

    Unfortunately, I cannot! I am a guest and as of yet they don’t allow guest commenting. I tried writing to them to remedy this evil but alas no reply as of yet.

    Please come around to SPL and ERI more often as that is the only way I can have contact with you and I’ve wanted to chat with you for quite some time about so much, especially as we’re so different on some issues and so similar on others :)

  • Crystal

    “you’re met with invective and nasty comments”

    I have. But I have also been able to win the respect of most advocates for legal abortion. I have two that I chat with regularly and they are very kind to me despite our disagreements :)

  • Crystal

    Just for curiosity’s sake would you call yourself a conservative or a liberal? You can answer the question here if you’d prefer as I don’t like taking things off-topic. I also read you’re a member of the LGBTQ+ community and if so you seem pretty conservative so I’m curious about how you can be a conservative and a LGBTQ+ at the same time, if you wouldn’t mind answering the question:

    http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html

  • Crystal

    My circumstances. I have to keep them private for the moment but they don’t permit it :(

    But if you could comment here and on SPL sometimes, I’d be so much obliged and I could give you a shout-out plus lots of energetic debates and empathetic chats :)

    That Sharon Diehl is not a woman who is very respectful I am afraid. I respect her as a person but I find her arguing tactics dishonourable.

  • Crystal

    “I’m pretty liberal socially on most things except abortion”

    Similar story here though I’d consider myself quite liberal in many areas and quite conservative in others :)

    Fiscal conservative? Wonder what that is?

    “There’s lots of people in the LGBT community who are on the conservative side :-)”

    Wow, really? How can they be when cis-hetero conservatives are not nice to them?

  • Crystal

    :)

    Yes it is. I am prolife in case you didn’t catch it. Though many people who like me tend to consider me “pro-choice” because in some ways I seem close to their way of thinking on women’s rights though NOT on abortion! Pro-“choice” in every way but the most important one, I was told once. The Most important one meant Abortion, I cannot ever accept that practice as it is very immoral to take innocent human life but I stand up for contraception and sex ed and social safety nets and other measures to reduce abortion via supply :)

  • Crystal

    My friend, I feel I need to tell you something. This kind of speech is not tolerated on this website. I realise you’re vexed with Shifty because he has been most unkind to you yet this site exists primarily for the purpose of education and constructive debate. Please read the comment policy carefully, as I care a lot about your being able to comment in peace and freedom here and feel you have a lot to contribute provided you follow the commenting rules:

    blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

  • Crystal

    “Totes I’ll come on every once in a while”

    You’re very kind. Please don’t forget me! I’ve enjoyed the chat tremenjously!

    “Oh yeah I know all about needing to remain anonymous”

    I appreciate your understanding on the point! Once my circumstances change I can get myself a proper account, but this will have to do for now I’m afraid.

    “You know they used to allow guest posters I wonder when they stopped”

    Shame. What a shame. We could have talked a long time before today if not for this barrier :(

    “Oh yeah Sharon… She’s not a nice person. I have no respect for her.
    She cannot refrain from calling pro lifers all kinds of crazy names”

    Sharon was awful to me and all other posters so much so that even a fellow abortion advocate called her out on her bull. She ridiculed my loving upbringing because my parents taught me YEC via homeschooling (I am questioning YEC) and she was altogether jeering and mocking :(

  • Crystal

    “i think when it comes to conservatism, it’s not so much about people being nice to you–it’s about specific principles”

    That’s pretty brave, considering how much the extremist conservatives hate LGBTQ individuals. But to each their own, I think.

    “To be honest though….I’ve only ever felt comfortable around conservatives”

    I confess to being a half-breed with liberal tendencies and conservative ones. Sometimes I call myself a liberal. But I like to get along with people on their terms and mine so I hope you can feel comfortable around me too.

    “They don’t care about my orientation or my ethnicity.”

    These conservatives sound neat. I have never heard of conservative people being so accepting like how you describe them. Can you give me a few examples because all I have heard from people calling themselves conservative is a strong dislike of people different from themselves, so please forgive me for my ignorance.

    “I have had some liberal friends tell my husband how proud they are of him for marrying a minority :-/”

    I can sympathise; I get where they’re coming from but it isn’t nice having your minority status mentioned all the time is it? To each their own, I respect the fact your life journey is different from mine.

    Have you ever heard of “the soft bigotry of low expectations”? Also, there are different types of liberals, and some of them are just plain regressive. I don’t belong in that group!

    • wiffle

      “These conservatives sound neat. I have never heard of conservative people being so accepting like how you describe them. Can you give me a few examples because all I have heard from people calling themselves conservative is a strong dislike of people different from themselves, so please forgive me for my ignorance.”

      I was a far left liberal once. Then I was a moderate liberal. Then I woke up one day and realized I was conservative and I was lost. :)

      The people who are right wing jerks literally get all the press. I don’t hang out with them either. Honestly, the nicest group of people I’ve ever been with have been conservatives, who in a different era would have liberal – they are really classical liberals. Most of the people who call themselves liberals today progressive leftists or as as you noted, totally regressive. Spent a lot of time in secular, liberal//Democrat groups – not willing to go back. :)

      “I can sympathise; I get where they’re coming from but it isn’t nice having your minority status mentioned all the time is it? To each their own, I respect the fact your life journey is different from mine.”

      This is what middle to upper middle class racism looks like 2015. The old style, honest stuff is still around, and I think some ways it might be easier to deal with. But even more politely put, what it is not Martin Luther King Jr’s dream of judging by the content of character. I have come to think of most accusations of racism towards conservatives (but not all, there is some) as a highly convenient projection.

  • Crystal

    Just for curiosity’s sake why don’t you like feminism? Because you seem to have a very negative opinion of it from what I have seen – that is, if you wouldn’t mind answering.

  • Crystal

    “Really? Which thread was this?”

    This one: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/09/dear-bill-nye-wheres-science-guy.html

    “I’m totes sorry about your encounter with Sharon”

    Thanks :)

    “If it makes you feel any better, she’s like that with everyone who doesn’t agree with her”

    It makes me feel worse, ugh. I’d feel better if I were the only one she mocked. She says she is all prickly like that cuz the fight for reproductive “rights” made her all feisty and unpleasant :(

    “Ok, I admit that I had to look up YEC I’d never heard of it before”

    Young Earth Creationism

    And yes, I’m telling the truth my parents were a loving twosome.

    “Pro aborts really love to mock people who have been home schooled”

    That one did, ugh. My friends don’t.

    “That puzzling to me though…I attended a really academic private high school and the kids who came from home schooling were so much smarter than a number of us”

    I’d say being homeschooled benefited me a lot! Yet private and public school have their advantages too.

    What brought you to become a believer in prolife thought and practice?

    Talking to a fellow prolifer like this is so refreshing, although I deeply enjoy and cherish the company of my friends who believe in legal abortion as well.

  • Crystal

    I’ve been told you can’t be prolife and feminist, alas! So I don’t call myself feminist. But I’ve read feminist theory on many different levels and types – in my own way, of course.

    I actually read from a progressive feminist site sometimes, and yes, sometimes you need trigger warnings for rape victims and spiritual abuse survivors. Sometimes you need safe spaces too. So there is value to such thought, but like you said, it can be abused!

    Also, what do you find awesome about prolife feminists? Just curious.

  • Crystal

    “Indeed, Conservative LGBT people are among some of the bravest people I know.”

    They sure are, when they get slammed for being evil and ugly coz they’re different!

    “Yeah, I’m liberal on most things. I draw the line at abortion”

    Me too, except I add fundie Islam and a few other little things to the list.

    “Oh, all the regular posters on LAN, and a great many number of my followers —we’re all pretty accepting of each other”

    Great!

    “Yes I’ve heard of the soft bigotry of low expectations”

    Which is disproportionately practiced on minorities. Ex-Muslims are victimised by it repeatedly:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/12/04/activist-maryam-namazie-heckled-at-talk-by-muslim-students-who-say-she-invaded-their-safe-space/

    “I think the term liberal is being misused : it’s really progressive leftism”

    In some ways I agree because these regressive people are hijacking the term that was meant to mean freedom and equality for themselves. In a way I disagree because there are plenty of good liberals who don’t appreciate what they are doing, myself being one of them.

    I want to share a way that I think would really help the PL movement really whack this abortion problem once and for all if you want to hear it.

  • Crystal

    Amazing. You know Wollstonecraft was one of these, don’t you? I could provide a quote from her book A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

  • Crystal

    Thanks for sharing your story. I thought you said you were an atheist though. As for your friends they are not true friends. My buddies know at least a good deal of where I stand on the issue and we have developed a fairly close online friendship despite this :)

    As for me I have always been prolife, never doubted or wavered. It is so incredibly simple. Why wouldn’t you believe?

  • Crystal

    Will share my comment on whacking abortion so hard this little softball sails into a bush and falls into quicksand, never to be heard from again, right in response to this comment, and you can read it and tell me your thoughts later, if you don’t mind.

    Enjoy your Christmas party!

  • Crystal

    I’ll post up the quote later, but I gotta run to a church service.

    PS: I’m not a Christian but I attend with my family at present.

  • Crystal

    Ah yes, your being agnostic, I now remember.

    I’m sorry to hear you’d be rejected though :(

  • Wild_Bird

    Thank you PJ4 for being a champion for the unborn.

    • Crystal

      Please come onto this website more often because Josh Brahm teaches people how to argue constructively with advocates for legal abortion; it’s a truly wonderful site.

  • Crystal

    “Honestly even if you weren’t pro life you’ve won my respect because of how nice you are”

    Thanks so much! My friends on other websites who disagree with me on this issue feel the same way :)

    “And yes, I agree: pro choice on everything except abortion”

    Great! Just wondering though, about how you handle controversial drugs and devices that some say have abortifacient properties due to preventing implantation, yet others disagree and say they have purely contraceptive properties.

    Just for curiosity’s sake, do you think the PL movement is in need of improvement in any areas at all and if so, how? If not, why would you be content with its present state?

    “I’m totally bummed you can’t come onto LAN :-/”

    As am I. The point is they never responded to my email ever. So I can’t for the present though I have so wanted them to respond. Can you somehow get something through to them about guest comments, as you comment there regularly, and perhaps they will take a look. Thanks for talking :)

  • Guest

    LAN, unfortunately, has enough trolling problems even with anonymous comments disabled.

  • Ann Morgan

    Crystal: Google ‘compulsive liar’.

    • Crystal

      I did.

      Why do you say that? I would appreciate your backing up your statements please as I am open to learning about the integrity of every single person I chat with.

      Also, I don’t know the details but I’m aware that PJ and fiona64 have had a few run-ins (and no, I didn’t ask PJ for specifics or anything). Of course if she is a compulsive liar I’m sure I’ll find out eventually. However, I prefer not to take sides in online quarrels, and to believe a person innocent until proved guilty beyond a doubt. As I told another commenter, I care about every person I interact online with and prefer to speak civilly to people. So I will be kind to everyone – whether it’s PJ *or* fiona64 or whoever else it is.

      • Crystal

        Now, folks, with all due respect, if you want to sling mud at each other, PJ, Ann, Expect Resistance, you can’t do it on this blog. Josh has very strict rules about the way this place is run and this is the kind of thing that could get everyone banned. Please read his commenting policy before continuing:

        blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

    • williamdiamon

      I did, your name came up.

  • Crystal

    “Everything always has room for improvements
    Nothing is perfect and no one should become complacent.”

    How should it be improved then, in your opinion?

  • Crystal

    “What is it that OR has done to be called a terrorist group?”

    I believe I misunderstood the question. You meant the prolife groups. Here’s an article about OR(s), unsure of its truth but if true is incredibly damning for prolifers everywhere:

    http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme?_ga=1.201140013.246407826.1449257486

  • Crystal

    Before I say anything else, I should have made it clear that Josh likes people to stick to the topic as well. That’s my fault and I’m sorry for that.

  • Crystal

    Do you think that the PL movement calling abortion murder and comparing it to the Holocaust had *anything* at all to do with the actions of this shooter?

  • Crystal

    As an ardent PL supporter I realise that my words might come as a shock to quite a few individuals. But here I go.

    First off I’d like to recognise the good that many grassroots folks particularly in the PL movement have done – counselling women not to get an abortion (sometimes even on the sidewalks!), taking women into their own homes and helping them pay their medical bills, adopting children, offering education to women to better equip them about finance and childcare, among other things. All of these are good efforts, and the idea of CPCs, in and of itself, is a good thing also. There is much good that the PL movement has done.

    But there is also much bad. Some PLs have advocated for terrorism and outright harassing and stalking of abortion practitioners. They’ve also screamed hatred at people
    over the other side of the fence, and sometimes even shot them. Much of the PL movement is being run by a handful of people who care very little for pregnant and unborn persons and would much prefer to line their pockets with money and
    power. The incrementalist laws I hear of are horrifying. We have only eliminated a few small percentages of abortion – 7% for instance – in forty years. We celebrate when it is 40,000 instead of 60,000. Supposing you add up 40,000 for two years, you’ve done 80,000. Alternatively we have weakened our language to stop calling abortion what it truly is – a human rights abuse, and compromised on permitting abortions in “some cases” for some reasons. We don’t really care about ZEFs either, I don’t think. We call those drugs and devices “murderous” yet we either compromise by taking them and promoting them to others, or we lie about their abortifacient properties when they are genuinely contraceptive, thus dehumanising women and contributing to the problem. We refuse to answer the hard questions about rape and incest and 9-year olds. If life really mattered why didn’t we find a way to properly eliminate abortion by now? Also consider this: sometimes we’ve been unnecessarily strong, to the point of causing unnecessary offence, when we accuse people of loving genocide, etc. We’ve condemned women for having sex while in possession of a uteri by throwing “you do the crime you do the time” in their faces because the mainstream PL movement is run by abstinence-only individuals that care about unborn persons second to sex. Sometimes we’ve even told outright lies to advance the cause. If we have the truth what have we to
    fear?

    I’ve been thinking about this question – for years. I believe I have my answer, and am still working on it. This is it, so far as I have it:

    1) Keep up the good work that has been done so far. The childcare classes, counselling the women not to do it,
    etc.

    2) All lies must be eliminated. If someone asks another person if they are prolife they *must* answer honestly (I’ve
    heard of CPC workers not being particularly candid when the question was addressed to them, to get women in the door; if indeed this is the case this is wickedness)

    3) Stop compromising. Stop offering women pamphlets on how to get “safe abortions.” It is both disingenuous and
    weakening to our stance. It makes us look something we’re not. Also quit the incrementalism! Incrementalism is *hurting* our cause like you would not believe. We must instead start campaigning for bills like the Heartbeat Bill, that get rid of 95% of abortions in one swoop. Also stop calling abortion “sin”; call it “human rights abuse” instead because that is what it truly is

    4) Stop accusing. I have insisted that our language on the act of abortion stay strong. Our language towards the
    people, however, has to change. It is imperative to study why women get abortions in order for this to happen. No, it is more than just convenience, I found out to my shock. We must stop telling people they are Nazis, and that they love genocides, and are just as bad as slave-owners. For all you know that could be your next-door neighbour and you lost them because you were aggressive and they were questioning the issue. This doesn’t mean there is never a time to use strong language. We simply need more wisdom in when it applies, I believe, and it should be used sparingly that the effect might linger longer. In short, we must show love and debate rationally, proving from science and morality why abortion is wrong; it’s more effective than calling people a bunch of names

    5) Educate yourself. Read sources from prolife and pro legal abortion sides to gain greater perspective on this very difficult topic. Read feminist literature – intersectionalist, liberal, the lot. Learn about the causes of abortion – rape culture, poverty, domestic violence, etc, and combat them in your community

    6) Change people’s hearts and minds. Learn how to debate advocates for legal abortion with compassion. The real
    point is to show them *why* abortion is a morally reprehensible act rather than to hate on them; you’ll find more people come around when you explain the stages of pregnancy than when you shake your fist in their faces

    7) Alter our attitudes towards sex and pregnancy. As I mentioned before the mainstream PL movement is run by
    people who insist on abstinence before hetero marriage. We need to become more sex-positive, more embracing of people with uteri, gender-fluid, gender-queer, trans, etc. We need to stop blaming women for pregnancy and embrace the fact they can be pregnant. Give them a base to come to when it happens rather than blaming them for it. Stop letting men off the hook – it’s bad politics. Also don’t fear contraceptives and sex education. They are one of our biggest weapons in defeating abortion long-term and big-time.

    8) Get interested in the sciences. Part of the reason many PL people haven’t been able to advance is that they don’t
    have a foothold in the scientific community. They need to educate themselves on contraceptives, abortifacients, etc. If a drug or device is contraceptive, improve contraceptive and female-friendly properties. If a drug or device is abortifacient, remove abortifacient properties and strengthen contraceptive and female-friendly ones. Stop listening to the nay-sayers who claim contraception will destroy your country. Fight for voluntary sterilisation. Seek to create superior
    technological alternatives to abortion so that pregnant persons can assert their bodily autonomy yet unborn persons get to live. As you improve technology we hope to touch life-of-the-mother and ectopic pregnancies so that women will no longer need abortion to deal with these cases either; in short, cut abortion from demand and supply to the point where women will not want to abort because they will not need to yet unborn persons are protected by law; also we especially need such technologies for the hard cases like rape and incest; they must be done in such a female-friendly fashion that they could be performed multiple times on the same women without complications to either her or the unborn person

    9) Be honest enough to recognise flaws in the system. For the present if abortion became illegal pregnant persons, especially poor ones, would get the short side of the stick. They would be thrown in prison for endangering their unborn babies via drugs and might even be possibly punished for miscarrying. We need to create laws that will ensure that these kinds of abuses cannot be carried out on pregnant
    persons. Women are people too

    10) Improve circumstances so women can keep their babies. In addition to all we’re doing now, we have to improve our
    adoption system, our social safety nets, our health-care places, etc, so that women can feel safe when they have an unwanted pregnancy – safe enough not to abort, safe enough to adopt out, and safe enough to keep if they want to

    11) Feminise the movement. I am so sick of watching pregnant persons being thrown under the bus all due to some traditional ideas of their worth. Pro-life means prolife for all and not just anti-abortion. They are worthy of life too.

    12) Take the issue seriously, discourage flippancy with either pregnant or unborn persons, behave like a decent person, and if I think of anything else I’ll pin it up too.

  • Crystal

    Sure, no probs. I was so excited to be speaking to you at long last I asked you opinions on a lot of unrelated topics (though abortion topics are somewhat more related to the mission of this blog than any others) so that was my fault, very sorry!

    Did you read my long paragraph below and if so what did you think of it? And yes, I think it is on-topic!

  • Crystal

    “No, I don’t.”

    I agree with you! Yeah well, we have been blamed for this! All because we call abortion murder, we’ve influenced people to think of all advocates for legal abortion as murderers and indirectly contributed to this shooting. How selfish we are! If only we’d tone it down. Also would we be so nice to a nazi as we are nice to people who believe in legal abortion? Aren’t we being inconsistent? I have been wrestling with these questions a lot and it feels a little frustrating. I have finally reached the conclusion that when it comes to people we have to tone it down unless there’s good reason not to but when it comes to actions we have to be strong yet sensitive on the topic.

    What say you? Have you had that experience? Or was yours quite different?

  • Crystal

    I know you did.

    I am sorry about the link. It worked on mine.

    Let’s try again and see how it goes:

    http://www.pfaw.org/rww-in-focus/operation-rescue-s-big-break-how-organization-rooted-radical-fringes-anti-choice-moveme

  • Crystal

    “I think we need to get rid of the most of the religious aspect of the pro life movement.”

    Which aspect is that?

    Also there is more than one aspect as I mentioned in my long comment. Traditional prolifism is by its nature run by religious people although you don’t have to be religious to be prolife. And I agree we must get rid of it. Why not start something grassroots that is genuinely secular?

    “All CPC’s should be untied and secularized and operate in a similar fashion to PP”

    I think so myself. Women need to be given all their options without judgment and have access to contraception and sex education, services they can’t do without. The problem with religious CPCs, much as they do good, is that they are out of touch with the sex-positive culture at large. People are going to have sex. Let’s give them the tools to do it not condemn them.

    “We need to make more public the good that CPC’s do for women and show NARAL to be the liars that they are.”

    Can you tell me the good you know that CPCs do please? Also how are NARAL lying to the public? I am curious to know especially as I have heard both positive and negative things about CPCs. For instance have you heard of the manual How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center by Robert Pearson? Also this is one place where they say negative things about CPCs, and I’ll dig up more for you if you want me to:

    http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=163224

    I’m curious about that pamphlet because I want to see for myself if they are telling the truth or just trying to smear the PL movement yet again.

    Also what do you think of the idea of forcing PP facilities to stop providing abortions and only permitting the sale of contraceptives and offers of sex education, via legal and financial punishment yet not shutting PP down? Do you think that is a good or a bad idea?

  • Crystal

    “All of it. We need to stop invoking god; it just turns people off.”

    Stop making God the reason to end abortion. Agreed. Yet plenty of religious and spiritual folks will oppose it, and will mention God as their reason. Science and morality should be our primary reasons I think. Though it must be admitted many abolitionists were deeply devout Christians. Ever heard of William Wilberforce? Also, Martin Luther King Jr was a devout Christian and he used God to rouse his people to action over the vileness of racial segregation.

    It’s not so much the faith expression as the religious principles on sex that turn people off, I think. When you tell girls they’re a licked candy bar for having sex before marriage then yeah, you’ll have a problem. Of course people will think that you’re trying to control pregnant persons! Get rid of the rape culture and apologism and abuse of women out of the PL movement as it’s all rife in church culture, sadly :(

    If you can’t jump ship and start something new!

    “In the works. :-)”

    Great! Can you tell me its name?

    “Yes”

    How many prolife leaders will take such wise suggestions on board? When you have a conference in Utah opposing contraception and saying it opens the door to abortion because you’re not open to life rather than because it could abort, ugh! What about when Bristol Palin opposes young women being implanted with IUDs (personally not sure if they stop zygotes from implanting but if they do my objections run in a different direction; would not oppose if they’re genuine contraceptives), it’s the principles of the matter? Why not improve contraceptives rather than banning them? What are these people thinking! For goodness’ sake it’s time for reform! Or breaking away and forming a new branch based on sex-positive principles.

    “Bernard Nathenson, co-founder of NARAL even admitted that they lied about the numbers of women dying in order to sway public opinion”

    Do you mind if I ask for a source please?

    “OH..and Naral had some “investigations” on how CPC’s are lying to women….you can google it.. it’s a total farce with zero evidence”

    I will when I can. But could you obtain a couple links for me to get started? Also, how are their claims baseless? Just curious.

    “I’ve not, no.”

    I think it’s time those kinds of things get asked about more often. I wish I could obtain the pamphlet myself then read it. I’d really like to see who’s telling the truth here.

    “I think that’s a good idea.”

    I will say it is worthy of consideration at least. When you have prolifers going to PP to have resources for dealing with an unwanted pregnancy and buying contraceptives from them, it is a thought. On the other hand, if it is indeed true that PP has such a dark past with eugenics, is this okay to consider? Taking all the evidence into account is very important when dealing with questions like this.

    BTW that idea came from a friend I have who is an advocate for legal abortion. She threw the suggestion out there saying if PL movement cared for life like it claims it would do just that rather than defunding PP and making the organisation defunct, basically.

    Some of the PL leaders are wackos. The PL grassroots seems a pretty intelligent bunch IMO. But it looks as if the higher up you go the dumber you get. Though I will say this doesn’t apply to all PL leaders but rather a select few but powerful number.

    For instance, ever heard of Doug Wilson? He’s not exactly a leader but he has clout in the more extreme factions of conservativism.

  • Crystal

    Just for curiosity’s sake, how do you know that they are not credible?

  • Crystal

    “You know they have an agenda when they use the term “anti-choice”.”

    To me this agenda means calling abortion a morally valid, acceptable “choice”. What does this particular agenda mean to you?

    “It’s like expecting a pro “choicer” to believe anything that comes out of Operation Rescue..”

    I can seen the sense in that.

    “We all have our personal biases…”

    Intellectual honesty demands that we be open to hearing and learning from a variety of sources even if we personally disagree with them. That is one particular purpose of Josh’s work, actually, and this website is part of it.

    “The battle lines are clearly drawn”

    Why do you say that? I hope you don’t mind my asking, I’m curious as to why you call it a “battle”. Personally I would have tended to call it a “human rights issue” more because I don’t see myself at war with anyone but I do see myself standing for human rights. However, you are free to disagree, and if you do I’m open to hearing why.

  • Crystal

    “The same”

    You are aware of bodily autonomy arguments, aren’t you?

    “Yet, I’ve yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro “choice” side.”

    In the sense that its personhood is not fully acknowledged I tend to empathise with this opinion. Yet the point of bodily autonomy is not getting rid of it because it is a nuisance but rather getting rid of it *despite* its personhood and humanity. Despite all this my two friends try hard to be intellectually honest people.

    “I used the term battle because i think both sides are on the attack
    You’re right though, it’s a civil rights….battle.”

    I suppose I could look at it that way. I simply don’t tend to use military-sounding language to describe my position, for the aforementioned reason above.

    Just for curiosity’s sake, have you ever heard about tokophobia, and if so, what do you believe about tokophobia?

  • Crystal

    “Yet, I’ve yet to see much intellectual honesty from the pro “choice” side.”

    I’ve experienced having prolife sources being called “lies” and dismissed out of hand rather than thoughtfully rebutted so I understand where you’re coming from. Although I know one person who tries to rebut rather than dismiss. She’s incredibly intellectually sharp, I think.

    Do you mind if I ask a small favour of you?

  • Crystal

    I hope you won’t mind if I take the liberty to request a reply to the following comments if you would be so kind. Of course, please know that I respect the fact your schedule is hectic and you are under no obligation to answer at the present time (if you are thinking through your replies to me) or even at all. I hope I am not coming across as pushy but rather as very respectful and I hope I am not burdening you unnecessarily.

    Here they are below (but only if you want to reply), and take your time:

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396781480

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2397026553

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2397198387

    https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2396939550

    Thanks for chatting with me!

  • DGCJ

    Oops, you upvoted a comment which was proven false. In fact, most men
    who molest boys are heterosexual males (google Jerry Sandusky):

    There are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated
    child molester cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often
    finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes.
    Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may
    “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations.
    Researchers have found no regressed molesters who were exclusively homosexual in
    their adult relationships.

    The majority of perpetrators of sexual violence are men.
    Studies of sexual assault against children and young adolescents report that
    more than 97% of perpetrators were male. Despite popular belief, most male
    perpetrators identify themselves as heterosexual and often have consensual
    sexual relationships with women. One study notes that 98% of male perpetrators
    self-identify as heterosexual. Source: Male Survivors of Sexual Violence, state
    of Michigan…..

    A child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s
    heterosexual partner is 100 times greater than by someone who might be
    identified as a homosexual.”

    Carole Jenny, MD, Head of the Division of
    Child Maltreatment at Brown University, within a 1994 Pediatrics article titled
    “Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?”

    One study involved 175 male adults who had been convicted in
    Massachusetts of child sexual assault. They found that none of them were
    homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester.
    They were sexually attracted only to children and not to other adults.
    Another researcher studied sexually abused children seen in a hospital.
    Only 2 perpetrators (less than 1% of the total) were homosexuals (i.e. were
    attracted to same-sex adults).

    Child sexual abuse is widespread. It is perpetrated by males
    in the vast majority of cases. And a substantial minority of their victims are
    boys. Data relating to men abusing boys is hungrily pounced upon by opponents to
    equal rights for homosexuals, who often use it against both gays and lesbians in
    civil rights battles. But it is not homosexuals who are responsible for the
    abuse. It is rather pedophiles who are attracted to children, and have decided
    to abuse them.

    The number of Americans who believe the myth that gay people
    are child molesters has declined substantially. In a 1970 national survey, more
    than 70% of respondents agreed with the assertions that “Homosexuals are
    dangerous as teachers or youth leaders because they try to get sexually involved
    with children” or that “Homosexuals try to play sexually with children if they
    cannot get an adult partner.”

    By contrast, in a 1999 national poll, the belief that most
    gay men are likely to molest or abuse children was endorsed by only 19% of
    heterosexual men and 10% of heterosexual women.

    People, it is illogical that a homosexual man would be
    attracted to boy. The physical characteristics of boys resemble women more than
    men:
    high pitched voices

    smooth, soft skin

    no facial hair

    no body hair

    a pen is incapable of getting hard

    Of what use is that to a gay man?

    NAMBLA consists primarily of 300 heterosexual males, who are
    married to women. Oprah did a show on NAMBLA and people were surprised to learn
    that her guest, Todd Calvin, is a heterosexual man with three children of his
    own, who is attracted exclusively to women and to boys. He told Oprah that the
    thought of sex with another man was disgusting to him. He described his
    attraction to boys as being similar to that of women.

    • Crystal

      Excuse me, but this is entirely off-topic and could be treated as spam. Please repeat your comment somewhere else and read the commenting policy before proceeding further:

      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

      Josh’s blog is being treated like a rugby field at the moment and I’m not appreciating it.

      • DGCJ

        If you can find a way to communicate with people who only comment on rightwing sites (which routinely block people), I’d respect your request. Until then, I will continue to comment whenever I can find a site which will accept comments. Why are conservatives so intent on shutting down discourse?

        • Crystal

          I can appreciate your dilemma, DGCJ. It’s just that Josh’s site is a safe space to discuss life issues and Josh doesn’t like things taken off-topic.

          What do you personally believe about all this? Do you think that comparing the *practice* of abortion to slavery caused this guy to go out and shoot people, or do you think it namecalling people who had abortions, or do you think it was deeper than that? Also do you think there is a difference between condemning an action someone does and condemning the person themselves?

        • I deleted your comment because it was entirely off-topic. This is not a place to copy and paste diatribes about other issues. If you do that again, expect to be blocked. As our comments policy says, this isn’t a free speech zone. It’s not about discourse about every topic under the sun. That’s not why people come to this site. They come for clear thinking about abortion and practical dialogue tips.

          • Crystal

            Actually, I did try to tell him that.

  • Crystal

    I have been asked a few times by at least one advocate for legal abortion why it is I am friends with them. Let me explain.

    This
    person is operating from the point where PLs say abortion is murder.
    They say that if I say abortion is murder and compare it to slavery and
    the Holocaust, how can I be friends with them? You see, would you sit
    down to lunch with a nazi or a slaveholder? No? Then why would you treat
    an advocate for legal abortion this way? Isn’t it inconsistent with
    what you believe to be friends with an advocate for legal abortion yet
    say abortion is morally reprehensible because it takes an innocent human
    life? What about the fact that since PLs are friends with advocates for
    legal abortion yet hate what they do they mustn’t believe unborn
    persons are real people for sure, and they are doing it because it makes
    them feel superior and they want power over others. The worst part of
    their claims is that people like this shooter are the most morally
    consistent because they act out what they believe, that abortion is
    murder and then they shoot people to stop murder. How can you answer
    such claims????

    • I’m probably coming from a different perspective than your friend thinks all pro-lifers are coming from, perhaps a more nuanced perspective.

      I don’t call abortion “murder,” although I think it’s killing. I don’t often compare it to slavery or the Holocaust, because while there are some valid comparisons, there are often a lot of comparisons between the two that would be disanalogous. I don’t think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb.

      I think the single most effective way to change a mind about abortion is in the context of friendship. I’ve written many of the reasons for this as well as several case studies here: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/category/relational-apologetics/

      There’s even an abortionist in Utah that wants to get together with me to discuss the issue. I would take that appointment, because it’s my best shot at changing her mind. I think we’ve written a very thorough case in this post for why we’re opposed to violence, so what’s the alternative? I think loving people and having a good exchange of ideas is the answer.

      • Crystal

        Thanks for answering, Josh. This question has torn at me so much.

        You ever seen the movie Final Solution? It deals with the topic of racism in South Africa, where a young man wanted to start a nazi movement similar to the one in Germany. You know who changed his mind? His girlfriend asking him to think through things dealing with racism. His education, making him read Cry, the Beloved Country. And most of all, a black pastor whose unconditional forgiveness broke him down when he tried to assassinate him. If those people who say this are right then they were friends with a nazi-minded individual, weren’t they? They didn’t believe what they said when they stated that blacks were people with rights, did they?

        Sometimes I wonder if I am being inconsistent when I talk about these things with people. I suppose their question is, if you really care about what you believe, that abortion takes innocent human life, why are you friends with me? Because it’s a game for you and it makes you feel morally superior. That hurts so much. The thought of betraying what I think is very painful yet how can you reach people with the truth if you don’t speak it in love?

        “I don’t call abortion “murder,” although I think it’s killing.”

        After that conversation with you I have tried to stay away from saying that. My friend brought up I had said that it was cold-blooded murder, and worked from that angle even after I tried to explain to her that I tried to speak in a more nuanced fashion on the topic due to your influence.

        I think you’re fair to say that legally, it’s not murder. Morally, however, it is. And we’re trying to get people to see that.

        “I don’t often compare it to slavery or the Holocaust, because while there are some valid comparisons, there are often a lot of comparisons between the two that would be disanalogous.”

        In a way I agree with you! Because the example of abortion isn’t politically close to nazism, but it’s actually closer to slavery, because in both cases slavery and abortion you were/are in a democratic society where these issues could/can be changed by due process of law. Not so with nazism.

        Can you please explain how it would be both analogous and disanalogous to compare abortion to slavery (and if you can, nazism as well)? Please tell, I am interested, it would be so helpful :)

        I realise that abortion is analogous to nazism in the sense that it has that mentality of being tied up with eugenics, would I be correct in saying that? Also is there a difference between rationally pointing out similarities and differences between the two, and saying “All pro-aborts have the mindset of a nazi”?

        “I don’t think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who has been lied to about what is actually in her womb.”

        I told my friend that and she said it was irrelevant, I think because the implication was because you wouldn’t be so excusing of Germans who didn’t know, would you? She asked me if a German told you it was totes cool to kill a Jew “because he didn’t know any better” would you be friends with him long? How about a guy beating and battering innocent little babies in his backyard, all because he “didn’t know any better”? Also would you honestly spend the time with a nazi or slaveholder trying to convert him? If you wouldn’t why would you spend time with people who believe in abortion? She told me she’s seen racists talk and she would never be friends with one, so why would a prolifer be friends with a “pro-abort”, because “I wouldn’t want to be friends with a Nazi, would you”? I suppose there is a huge disconnect between calling people nazis and being friends with them; I see her point entirely on name-calling! My rational mind tells me there’s something wrong with all this stuff but my emotions go very haywire on receiving those kinds of replies. For instance, we don’t have nazism or slavery around today like we used to. But we do have abortion; it’s our new civil rights issue. So we have to, as a friend of mine said, get people aware of the problem and turn public opinion against it. It’s the best way, especially as the law isn’t exactly on our side.

        I think what she was trying to say is that language is important. We walk a fine line between compromising our convictions by being too soft with the language (yes, there is such a thing!) and being too harsh with the language and thereby turning people away from our message.

        “I think the single most effective way to change a mind about abortion is in the context of friendship.”

        I will certainly look at your links that you have provided! Also I agree with you about friendships. I am aware of how you helped sow a few seeds in the mind of one of your friends, thus encouraging her to come around. That was wonderful, though I know you didn’t be friends with her to change her mind. Yet you’ve said, your first agenda is loving a person, yes? If that’s so, would that logically apply to slaveholders and nazis, the scum of the earth, if you were living during those times? And no, I don’t generally consider advocates for legal abortion (meaning my next-door neighbour, my teacher, my friend) “the scum of the earth” although there are times I absolutely hate what they believe on this issue and am horrified that anyone could hold such views.

        “There’s even an abortionist in Utah that wants to get together with me to discuss the issue. I would take that appointment, because it’s my best shot at changing her mind. I think we’ve written a very thorough case in this post for why we’re opposed to violence, so what’s the alternative? I think loving people and having a good exchange of ideas is the answer.”

        What’s the alternative? You answered it yourself. The point I think is the language. They’re trying to say if you’re going to call someone a nazi and compare abortion to the holocaust don’t be surprised if someone acts on your words even if you’re too cowardly to do it yourself, also why would you say someone has the mindset of a nazi yet be friends with them? Personally I’ve tried to stay away from language that would accuse people, and deal with actions and why I morally disagree. I don’t think I have ever accused anyone of being a nazi or slaveholder or anything like that. I don’t know why but for some reason when people see me they respect me, and I deeply appreciate that :)

        You’re doing the right thing, Josh. I applaud your efforts. Yet can you be close friends with an abortion practitioner, or would your conscience forbid it? Also, do you believe that articles dealing with anti-abortion violence (not single shooters like this guy) as it comes to bombing abortion clinics and terrorising abortion practitioners is made-up stuff to smear the PL movement or does it occur? I ask because you seem to know a few people in the PL movement very well.

        Some would ask, due to the comparisons that others have given, if you could be so kind to an SS officer. But would you consider such a comparison disanalogous? How to answer these people I know not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My question is, I think, how can you answer such comparisons? What are the right words to say, that can show them you are genuine about what you believe yet you don’t advocate for violence?

        The funny thing is, this scripture runs in my mind (I’m not a Christian but was raised as one) which says in Daniel 12:3, KJV version, “And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” That is what you’re doing with your work. That is what all of us pro-lifers are meant to do. That is what we do every time we stand up for the truth. That’s why we shouldn’t give up. But can such a scripture apply to those other groups of people who oppressed and killed others for gain?

        I want to apologise for rambling on and on and sounding like a stuck record but I’m so confused, and struggling to work it out, and I’m reaching out for help. I suppose I’ve spouted out a lot of nonsense but thanks for answering my questions! Also if I think of anything else I’ll say, if that’s okay. Thanks for allowing me to vent. I want to be rational when answering, consistent, peaceful, kind, uncompromising, loving, etc.

        I think if we can change one person’s mind on abortion, we’ve done a good deed. Just as much as if we peacefully campaign against the barbaric trade of dogs and cats being eaten for meat in South Korea and China, or any other human rights injustice. I hope you will be deeply rewarded in yourself today as you continue your work of reaching people for the truth.

        • I’m sorry, I can’t respond to this many questions right now. I can’t get into all of the proper and improper analogies to slavery and the holocaust here. I imagine we will write detailed and well-researched articles on these topics in the future.

          The single point I made about it is sufficient (I think) to answer your friend. My friendship with a pro-choice person is not remotely analogous to being friends with someone who personally beats up babies in his back yard every day, because in the latter case it is painfully obvious to a person with a working conscience that this is wrong. I don’t think abortion is nearly as obvious to many pro-choice people.

          I don’t know if I could be close friends with an abortion practitioner. Whether we could have lots of conversations like I did with Deanna would probably depend on how open-minded he or she was. Whether we would truly be friends would probably depend on whether we both cared about each other and were seeking each others flourishing. It’s complicated. An abortion practitioner may think that flourishing for her is continuing to do abortions, and I would think that flourishing is abandoning that work.

      • Crystal

        “I don’t think most aborting women are as culpable as SS officers were
        who killed Jews, because I think it was a lot more obvious to an SS
        officer that he was killing a person than it is for a pregnant woman who
        has been lied to about what is actually in her womb.”

        Another point – when most people realise what abortion truly is, they forsake it. And I agree they are not as culpable, although they are not entirely blameless; they did have a hand in it. Also they say, there are pictures of ultrasounds and lots of pregnancy info with full-coloured photos so there is no excuse; they know fully, don’t they?* I was informed on mentioning this that ignorance is no excuse, I think because would you excuse Germans who didn’t know what was happening to the Jews? How do you answer such people?

        I do, however, hold abortion practitioners highly accountable because they possess the full knowledge of the action but they do it anyway.

        *I think bodily autonomy plays a huge role in this – getting rid of an unborn person despite its personhood not because it isn’t a person (as you stated once).

        • Jim H

          Crystal:
          Could you qualify what you mean by the terms “personhood” or being a “person”? Is it automatically bestowed by virtue of having human DNA, or does it require something additional; e.g., a soul or sentience?

          • Crystal

            I think it means, one who is potentially capable of or is actually sentient and sapient. I haven’t really thought about it.

            • Jim H

              Thank you for clarifying. I would tend to go with the latter; i.e., actually sentient and sapient.

  • I’m deleting this comment due to our comment policy: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/

  • I’m deleting this comment due to our comment policy.

  • I’m banning you for repeatedly being snarky and calling another commenter “as dumb as a box of hammers.”

  • lady_black

    I know one who was eight. She is my niece, and she is also autistic. Her mother assures me that she would never be forced to continue a pregnancy by rape.

    • Hi lb, thats horrible that a child at eight year-old would be forced to continue a pregnancy.

      • Crystal

        Despite my prolife beliefs I am willing to admit that small children carrying to term is a difficult case that should tug on all our hearts.

        • Crystal this is a very interesting article and I appreciate having the opportunity to post here. Some thoughts about it.

          The author of the article Timothy Brahm posted in his bio, “He is interested in helping pro-life and pro-choice people to have better dialogues about abortion.” I applaud him for trying to facilitate an honest civil dialogue. However it’s difficult when pro-choices are demonized and miss labeled “pro-abortion.” This is not an accurate term. Those who are pro-choice are not “pro-abortion” but are in favor of all options for pregnant women, to continue a pregnancy or not.

          Rhetoric that paints pro-choicers as “baby killers” contributes to violence against women’s clinics. Since the videos were released by CMP there have been, “In the four months following the release of the videos, there have been at least four suspected arsons that targeted abortion clinics, compared with just one in all of 2014 and none in 2013. There have been at least five cases of vandalism since August. In comparison, there were 12 total cases of clinic vandalism in all of 2014 and just five cases in 2013, according to federation figures.” Quote from http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/11/violence-abortion-clinics-planned-parenthood-colorado-springs-shooting
          Sources:
          https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/10/02/four-arsons-74-days-planned-parenthood-clinics
          http://insiderlouisville.com/metro/windows-emw-womens-surgery-center-broken-twice-three-weeks/

          It would be great if both sides of the abortion debate could engage in a civil honest dialog. Thanks for your thoughts about this.

          • Crystal

            I appreciate your responding back. As a prolifer I feel it personally incumbent on me to be able to relate to both advocates for legal abortion and prolifers. I do not like the fighting and arguing between the two sides and a lot of it could be avoided if people didn’t sling mud at each other. Which is why I’ll talk to people as people, not pro-aborts or forced birthers.

            Do you believe there is a difference between saying these two things:

            1) Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible

            2) You’re a fan of genocide

            In other words, is there a difference between condemning actions and people who commit those actions?

            • Yes, I agree there is a difference. Kudos to you for not using the pejorative “pro-abort” term.

              • Crystal

                So you are more likely to listen to the first point than the second one?

                • I may not agree, but yes more likely to listen.

                  • Crystal

                    Why would that be?

                    • I disagree with this, “Your actions could lead you down a morally reprehensible path because your beliefs are off-base/; you are advocating for something morally reprehensible.” I don’t believe being pro-choice is morally reprehensible.

                    • Crystal

                      Yes, I realise you disagree. But my question was is expressing strong opinions about an ACTION different from condemning a PERSON?

                    • I get that but I don’t believe on condemning the action.

                    • Crystal

                      In regards to the action, we will have to respectfully disagree. However, in regards to people, we do agree that they not be generally condemned.

                      In light of that, would you mind describing to me your views on abortion?

                    • I am pro-choice.

                    • Crystal

                      I’m aware of that.

                      Do you think abortion should be done in the third trimester?

                    • I think the issue of third trimester abortions are a red herring. They are one percent of abortions.

                    • Crystal

                      Why do you say third trimester abortions are a red herring?

                      I asked because I know that some people approve of them, although most don’t.

                    • Sorry for the slow response, but I concur with Mr. G. I don’t think any woman wants to undergo a third term abortion. From what I understand and have read, women in this position are carrying a much wanted pregnancy and something with the pregnancy has gone horribly wrong, i.e. health of the mother or a fetus that is incompatible with life.

                    • Mr. G.

                      I suspect that most who do not approve of 3rd trimester abortions aren’t aware of the circumstances in which they’re performed – a wanted pregnancy gone horribly bad. The notion that woman are aborting willy-nilly on a whim in their 3rd trimester is a (horribly dishonest) myth,

                    • lady_black

                      Actually ZERO percent. Those are deliveries.

                    • Mr. G.

                      Of course, they should. All but perhaps a small handful of 3rd trimester abortions are done when a wanted pregnancy has gone seriously south – to preserve the life / health of the pregnant woman or because it’s been determined that the fetus is either already dead or has a condition incompatible with life that lasts beyond a few hours or days at most. I see no benefit in forcing a woman to continue to gestate a doomed pregnancy. At the same time, I don’t advocate for forced abortions, If a woman wants to continue that pregnancy because she perceives some value in giving birth and a few hours with her neonate before it dies, I do not object.

                    • lady_black

                      Abortion is not even POSSIBLE in the third trimester. That’s a delivery by definition, even if the fetus won’t survive.

                    • Mr. G.

                      For those of us who find holding a woman in involuntary servitude by forcing her to gestate a fetus against her will reprehensible, there’s no need to experience angst over actions needed to free a woman from that condition, One might experience that angst, but not doing so says nothing about the person’s perceptions.

                • lady_black

                  I agree with expect resistance. Once I hear the term “pro-abort” I just stop listening, period.

            • Mr. G.

              1) there is a difference between those two
              2) those are not the only perspectives available.

              • Crystal

                I’m aware of that. But my comment was precisely dealing with the way prolifers perceive and handle these things, rather than the general range of views out there.

                What are your views on abortion, personally, Mr. G? I realise you’re a legal abortion advocate, but I’d appreciate a concise explanation so that I don’t put you in a box.

                • Mr. G.

                  Although I’ve become accustomed to attempts to put me in a box defined by so-called “pro-life” people, I welcome the opportunity to step outside it because, after all, I am not entirely defined by advocacy for legal abortion.

                  Although it’s only part of who I am, I am defined, in part, by vigorous advocacy for a woman’s right to choose how her body is used. Although this extends far beyond the area of reproduction, it is my hope that any service she provides others is freely given so that blessing may abound and bitterness/resentment has no anchor. I am as opposed to forced abortion as I am to forced gestation. I am opposed to human trafficking in all forms. My advocacy with regard to reproduction includes a menu of things:
                  Realistic, accurate sex education
                  Easy access to effective contraceptives
                  When a woman’s primary contraceptive method fails, I have no objection to her employment of a secondary method in order to achieve her originally intended outcome: not pregnant.

                  Given that i see enslaving people as among the most reprehensible acts if not the most reprehensible,I am willing to employ any and all means necessary to free people from slavery. I do not experience angst about what is necessary. In my view, that would be a waste of time and energy to no useful end.

      • Shifty

        Have you ever tried to understand the sick minds of people who wish to force a child to carry her rapists fetus to term?

      • lady_black

        I agree, And my niece is particularly vulnerable to being taken advantage of because of her condition. She may never be fit to care for herself, even as an adult, much less care for a baby. And no one has the right to utilize her like an appliance.

  • Bucksergeant

    CYE

    • Shifty

      Flagged for being off topic.

      • Crystal

        Did you see my questions, Shifty?

        • Shifty

          Yes.

          • Crystal

            Would it be rude of me to request an answer to at least some of them? Of course, you don’t have to if you’d rather not.

            • Shifty

              Oh you mean from last week? Sure. Sorry about the confusion.

              • Crystal

                Yes, those very ones.

                • Shifty

                  As long as Josh doesn’t ban me first.
                  I am extremely busy IRL right now so I will try to respond to them within the next 24 hours. Have patience with me Crystal. ;)

                  • Crystal

                    Sure no probs.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Crystal, he is here strictly to stalk PJ4 and for no other reason. He could care less about abortion one way or the other. He is just a tried and true stalker. Period. He is a high school student attacking an adult.

                    • Shifty

                      Does she own all of Disqus? No, so just go away.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Poor baby, are you tired? Time to tell mommy you need blankie and a baa, baa. It’s nappy time. (I’ll be here as long as you are, what a little perv you are stalking an adult woman) Crystal, I hope your watching this.

                    • Shifty

                      How much did you spit on your computer typing that?
                      I’m not perving, project much punk?

                    • Crystal

                      Shifty, I must sternly remind you:

                      According to the comment policy, name-calling and quarrels from other websites are strictly prohibited:

                      And I quote:

                      “5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
                      you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
                      Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
                      in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
                      (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
                      threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
                      which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
                      decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
                      or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
                      promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
                      or your most recent blog post.”

                    • Shifty

                      Ok Crystal, did you get my replies yet?

                    • Crystal

                      I did, and thought them very good. Will respond back when I can, Shifty, thanks for caring enough to answer!

                    • Crystal

                      I am, and I am deeply grieved by it.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      I will quit responding

                    • Crystal

                      To him, yes. But please don’t stop responding to me, Bucksergeant, as I’m sure you have some valuable insights to offer.

                      For instance, did you get my question about the idea of abortion being murder being responsible for the massacre that occurred recently? I think that idea is faulty; what do you think?

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Let me git back with you, I am sitting down to supper

                    • Crystal

                      Fair enough, love. I’ll wait.

                    • megajess

                      Perhaps Shifty was “triggered” and needs a safe space.

                    • Crystal

                      That comment is insensitive to rape victims, spiritual abuse survivors, mentally ill people, and a whole other bunch who have generally suffered.

                    • megajess

                      Honey I’m not buying the crap your selling. Save it for Salon. Those asshats may take you up your bullshite but not here. Now scat! You are an tremendous waste of space and time.

                    • Crystal

                      Please remember the comment policy before proceeding:

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

                      Oh, and this blog is a safe space, for prolifers who want to hear themselves think and advocates for legal abortion who want to explore prolife ideas.

                    • megajess

                      Go take your meds. Your off schedule.

                    • Crystal

                      My friend Josh Brahm will be HIGHLY offended when he sees your comment. If you dislike the comment policy, take it up with him. I’m just trying to enforce the rules:

                      Oh, and here’s a relevant section for you to mull over carefully before proceeding further with any comments here:

                      “5. I reserve the right to delete your comments. This is my blog. I don’t have an obligation to publish your comments. The First Amendment gives
                      you the right to express your opinions on your blog, not mine.
                      Specifically, I will delete your comments if you post something that is,
                      in my sole opinion, (a) snarky;
                      (b) off-topic; (c) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing,
                      threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or
                      which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate my sense of
                      decorum and civility or any law, including intellectual property laws;
                      or (d) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise
                      promote goods and services. You may, however, post a link to your site
                      or your most recent blog post.”

                      PS: I don’t take drugs. I’m a teetotaler.

                    • megajess

                      You began this conversation not me. I don’t care who you are friends with, your threats are of no concern. There is no need to reply, your long winded comments “trigger me”. I’m gonna look for a safe space, hooefully government provided.

                    • Crystal

                      I didn’t threaten you. I simply pointed out that the moderators have strict rules on this blog, and also pointed out that your comments about safe spaces were triggering to survivors of traumatic events. I have no plans to quarrel with you so will leave you to your own devices.

                    • Rhetorical Brutality

                      Do you think you do? Sure sounds that way.

                    • Shifty

                      No one asked you.

                • Bucksergeant

                  Thank you Crystal.

                  • Crystal

                    Just curious – why are you thanking me?

                    • Bucksergeant

                      You stopped his attack when you deleted his comment. I know shifty has a blocked dashboard but maybe if you can get into it you will see that he is a tried and true stalker and he is here to stalk PJ4. It’s to the point that It’s getting out of hand.

                    • Shifty

                      Get into my blocked dashboard? Now who’s stalking?
                      Then PJ4 should leave. Commenting on the Internet is not stalking, you lose

                    • Bucksergeant

                      poor baby, yawn

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Thanks again for your up-vote, you are still a moron.

                    • Shifty

                      I didn’t upvote you at all.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      I’m not done with you.

                    • Shifty

                      Ok good bye

                    • Shifty

                      Not everything revolves around your Mooslem friend.

                    • megajess

                      But I went back and viewed the discussion you were responding to. I have to say the whole thing was pretty much off the wall You were the voice of reason.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      He is one of Expect Resistance followers. The whole group are mental cases.

                    • Crystal

                      I didn’t delete anything that I know of, but I did remind him of questions that needed to be answered. How did I delete?

                    • Bucksergeant

                      I repied to one of his posts (now two) that said the comment was removed by a moderator.

                    • Crystal

                      Did you see my question?

      • Bucksergeant

        Flagged for being a moron.

        • Shifty

          Name calling. Good for you.

          • Bucksergeant

            Another post by a moron.

            • Shifty

              I’m a fetus. So there. Now worship me.

              • Bucksergeant

                Another post by a moron..

                • Shifty

                  This is a site for clear pro-life thinking. It doesn’t suit you.

                  • Bucksergeant

                    Another post by a moron…

                    • Shifty

                      Another post by a moron…

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Another post by a moron.

                    • Shifty

                      Tell me more.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Thank you for the up-vote, you are still a moron.

                    • Shifty

                      Moron.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Quote the shitty “Waaa, waaa, wwaa mommy, He called me a moron.” Thanks Pee wee Herman. Are you out of school already? Pathetic, didn’t you learn the first time you attacked me?

                    • Shifty

                      yawns. What else you got?

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Actually It’s not what I’ve got, it’s the fact that you’ve been had. Yawns back.

                    • Shifty

                      Why are you so angry that I flagged your off topic post. This site isn’t your veritable dumping ground. Get lost chump.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Awww, how sad. I’m here as long as you are…. Chump.
                      p.s. little girl, it’s the site moderators who have the final say in flagging, you are strictly here because you are fixated on PJ4 and for no other reason, that is why you follow her from site to site. That is a TOS violation if she wanted to make an issue out of it.

                    • Shifty

                      I am fixated on the fetus, just like you and her.
                      Then she should take her grumpy grumbles and high tail it back to LAN.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Shitty “Awww, please leave, your UPSETTING ME”…too bad young lady, I’m going nowhere, Your too easy.

                    • Crystal

                      Bucksergeant, may I please remind you of the comment policy:

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Sorry Crystal, but we are dealing with a stalker, if you want me to quit replying, I will, just let me know.

                    • Crystal

                      I understand how difficult it can be, Bucksergeant. I do not believe in people stalking others. There wasn’t really anything wrong with your three-letter comment, and I know people can hurt others. You have my sympathy as well.

                      However, I think that, due to Josh’s strict rules, it would be best that you stopped responding. You’re feeding him every time you write up. Besides, I appreciate your presence here and feel you have much to contribute provided you follow the commenting guidelines.

                      I would like your opinion on something though: what do you think of the idea that prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they call abortion murder?

                    • Shifty

                      What about changing your depends?

                    • Shifty

                      So am I a young lady or a male HS student?
                      Better get your Alzheimer’s induced lies straight troll.

                    • Bucksergeant

                      Yawn….

                    • Shifty

                      Tattle tellin I see. Just go back LAN where you’re safe boy.

                    • Crystal

                      Please – STOP IT.

                    • Shifty

                      Yes I can. Have fun with this site. Now it’s forever polluted by trash.

                    • Shifty

                      Yes, you are that boring.

      • Jed

        Flagged for being an idiotic flag; besides, it was also off topic.

        • Shifty

          I don’t think Josh wants his site riddled with people’s personal issues.

          • Jed

            But you flag a three letter comment? A little petty of you, don’t you think?

            • Shifty

              I think most of pro-life sentinent is petty.

              • Jed

                So you endorse death. How very telling.

                • Crystal

                  Jed!

                • Shifty

                  I endorse no such thing, nor do I endorse trolling people about abortion the way that your friends do.

        • Crystal

          Jed, may I respectfully remind you of the comment policy please:

          blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

          Name-calling and off-topic quarrels are not allowed here, only constructive criticism of abortion and life issues.

          • Jed

            Thank you Crystal. Have you also made such a statement to Shifty?

            • Crystal

              Certainly have been, left and right, to EVERYONE including Shifty. Please read it before continuing your commenting here.

              I appreciate your contributions very much but they need to follow the rules.

              So tell me – do you think prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they called abortion murder, or not? And if not, why not?

              • Jed

                “So tell me – do you think prolifers are responsible for the shooting because they called abortion murder, or not? And if not, why not?”

                No. Why is it rational to think they would be? Did “prolifers” incite or encourage such an action? Did they they act as accessories before the fact in any way? Are they responsible for Dear’s mental illness? I think not to all of the above.

                • Crystal

                  I’ve been informed that even stating that abortion is murder incites violence and hate.

                  While I understand where they are coming from in the sense that abortion is not murder in the *legal* sense, it is murder in the *moral* sense. I am cautious about the language but care a lot about not compromising the truth of what abortion is.

                  • Jed

                    Crystal, I neither know nor care to know who “informed” you of that, but they are mistaken. Individual responsibility can never be reasonably transferred to others.

                    • Crystal

                      I know. I was viciously attacked for it once. I could show you where it happened. I was informed I was scum for what I believed, basically. It was hurtful. That’s one reason I came to Josh – to get help.

                      You’re right, Jed. They are mistaken. Although I believe we need to be careful with our words, I don’t believe in compromise on the point either.

                      “Individual responsibility can never be reasonably transferred to others.”

                      What do you mean?

                    • Jed

                      “The Devil made me do it” is the oldest excuse in history. The contemporary notion that some group of “others” must be held accountable for one’s actions is not only weak and immature, it has a decidedly Marxist flair about it, which tends to make it very popular with modern feminists and leftists.

                      “Responsibility is a unique concept; it can only reside and inhere within a single individual. You may delegate it but it is still with you. You may share it with others but your portion is not diminished. You may disclaim it but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If the responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else.” ~ Admiral Hyman G Rickover

                    • Crystal

                      So in short, these people are coming up with a weak excuse to blame the shooting on other people’s words, yes?

                      I appreciate your explanation about responsibility as well. I am liberal but not Marxist, and I’m betting you’re conservative, yes?

                    • Jed

                      There’s a saying in the military: “The effect range of an excuse is zero meters.” More people should be made aware of it. Whether the excuse is weak or not is not the point; it is still an excuse. That is to say, it is an attempt to shift the blame and deny individual responsibility. Take, for example, a “hit man” who is hired to commit a murder. That fact that someone else paid him makes him no less guilty of the crime.

                    • Crystal

                      That makes sense. The shooter does indeed posses individual responsibility. Are you saying that advocates for legal abortion who argue this way about speech leading to murder are seeking to shift blame?

                    • Jed

                      Yes. There is such a thing as incitement of others to commit an act, but simply saying, “I believe abortion is murder” does not rise to that level. It is nothing more than the expression of an opinion, not an incitement. If, on the other hand, someone were to say, “You should go out and kill those people who provide abortions,” that would be an incitement to commit an illegal (and immoral) act, and is properly against the law. Even if that was the case, it would not absolve the guilty party of the responsibility for his freely chosen actions.

                    • Crystal

                      That’s a fair answer. I’m sick of prolifers being blamed for this. I feel so strengthened and encouraged after talking to my fellow prolifers; it means so much to me.

                      Although I’m aware there was one guy who roused a crowd to cheers when he stated that he wanted to see abortion practitioners tried and hung by a legal court. Personally I do not believe in finding joy in death, otherwise that makes us no better than those committing the act. What say you?

                    • Jed

                      I say he should have been called on it and agree with your conclusion. Personally, I’ve never seen any but a peaceful protest, and would decry any other.

                    • Crystal

                      I know, but to frame all of us for the actions of a few is really dishonest IMO.

                      That doesn’t mean I don’t acknowledge that anti-abortion terrorism exists, nor that I am dishonest about its existence. What it means is that I don’t engage in it myself, nor would I be friends with anyone who did.

                  • Paul

                    You’ve been informed? It would be nice to know the source of your information. If it was not murder in the legal sense, wouldn’t you be obliged to explain why it would be murder in a moral sense? You state it as a given that it is and I was wondering about the basis for that.

                    • Crystal

                      When I say, informed, I don’t mean informed in the intellectual sense. I mean in the opinion sense. I’ve read the opinions of many advocates for legal abortion, which strongly tend towards this view.

                      I didn’t mean to state anything as a given.

                      “If it was not murder in the legal sense, wouldn’t you be obliged to explain why it would be murder in a moral sense?”

                      Depending on the situation, yes I would.

                      “You state it as a given that it is and I was wondering about the basis for that.”

                      I state as a given that it is … what? I ask because I’m confused as to what you’re saying.

                    • Paul

                      “While I understand where they are coming from in the sense that abortion
                      is not murder in the *legal* sense, it is murder in the *moral* sense.”

                      You state that it is your understanding that “it” (your it) is murder in a moral sense. You have presented it as a given with no reasoning supplied for your belief. To me is is irrelevant whether abortion is murder in a legal sense or a moral sense. It can be murder. All killing isn’t murder. All abortions are killing. Are some murder? In my opinion, a great many of them are, in both senses. Whether the law reflects that does not change the fact.

                      But a lot of the confusion here on both of our parts is the shift from talking about whether Speech describing murder is responsible for another’s actions. Did you edit your post? The first time I saw it it had the “it” in it in place of the word abortion. I interpreted that to mean the speech, not abortion. If I misread, my error.

                    • Crystal

                      I can’t edit. I have a guest account.

                      I have taken my understanding of how to describe abortion from Josh Brahm’s site. He says it in this comment:

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/joshbrahm/why_rhonda_changed_her_mind_about_whether_to_use_the_word_8220pro_choice8221/#comment-2284604723

                      Yes, my question was whether the speech describing murder was responsible for another’s actions. The it meant abortion, not speech.

                    • Paul

                      Sorry for the confusion. I have to say I disagree with Josh, hopefully in a respectful way. The whole idea that killing is murder because it is illegal is backwards to me. It is illegal because it is murder. But laws are imperfect things being the art of lawmakers. A law in error that makes a killing a murder when it is not or one that makes a killing justified when it is not, does not change the character of the act. The label doesn’t change the ingredients and sometimes can be misapplied. An erroneous label legally sheltering a murder does not make it less of a murder. If the law was changed tomorrow making the killing of people over 6′ tall was passed, does that make the killing yesterday of someone 6’2″ to not be murder? Is legality retro-active absolution? No, in my mind, it is illegal because it is murder and not that it is murder because it is illegal.

                    • Crystal

                      Fair answer. Although it is wise to remember legal issues when dealing with advocates for legal abortion. Good contribution. Thanks for stretching my mind, Paul!

                    • Paul

                      Just duck when it snaps back :-)

                    • Crystal

                      You’ve given me something good to think about so I think I’ll remember it. I will continue to seek to be wise when speaking to advocates for legal abortion but you are right, abortion is murder because it kills unjustly.

                    • Paul

                      Many many times this is true. I am not an absolutist, I wouldn’t say that all cases are so regardless of the particulars. I would also say that there might be mitigating circumstances that might apply to the woman but for the life of me I cannot understand why that should be extended to corporate third parties licensed to kill on nothing more than the permission of the woman. That one just mystifies me. Just because it is done by doctors, doesn’t mean it is medical care. Can a doctor avoid repercussions for running someone over with a car by claiming it is a medical procedure? Why is abortion any different? It is the callous inhumanity of the sophistic rationalization that appalls me most. This is a practice of a civilized society?

                      I could see how circumstance or indoctrination might make a woman make a bad choice. I don’t see how that could possibly excuse the practitioners who commit it.

                    • Mr. G.

                      IMO, there is nothing unjust in a killing necessary to affect escape from involuntary servitude.

                    • Jed

                      Paul is extremely adept at mind stretching.

                    • Paul

                      Yup, just count the bruises on my forehead from the snap-backs :-)

                    • Crystal

                      What’s a snap-back? Also, I hope I don’t bruise you, how could I do that, so I avoid bruising you?

                    • Paul

                      It is idiomatic. Don’t take offense please, are you a native English speaker?

                    • Crystal

                      Yes. One of my big problems in life is that I take people literally.

                    • Paul

                      I noticed:-)

                      You are going to be challenged if you run into Jed or me. Play’s on words, double meanings, puns…And heaven help you if you meet up with Javelina… Ha.

                    • Crystal

                      I have met up with Javelina. She is a nice lady, I think.

                    • Paul

                      She is an intensely good person. But there are times when she makes me blush.

                    • Crystal

                      What do you mean?

                    • Paul

                      I mean there are times when she makes me blush. A very straight-forward lady, one might even say earthy. A dear friend of mine none the less. I am old and therefore old school. There are some topics and descriptions that just scramble my programming.

                    • Crystal

                      A Candor.

                      “Politeness is just deception in pretty packaging” – Christina from Divergent

                      From what I know, old-fashioned people are less likely to discuss embarrassing topics, yes?

                    • Paul

                      No comment.

                    • Crystal

                      My humblest apologies, and I really mean that :(

                    • Paul

                      You did not offend me, it was a joke, a play on words. I warned you it would happen :-)

                    • Crystal

                      Oooh, okay :)

                      Divergent is a teen dystopia. Used correctly, it can show up the flaws in the thinking that only certain groups of people are valuable for life.

                    • Paul

                      Shot!

                    • Crystal

                      Do you mean you think it’s cool, then?

                    • Jed

                      Speaking to your last sentence: it is a matter of style, and is best tempered by time, place and company.

                      And to your quote:

                      Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as “empty,” “meaningless,” or “dishonest,” and scorn to use them. No matter how “pure” their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.

                      ~ Robert Heinlein

                    • Crystal

                      I can understand that. She is nice nonetheless.

                    • Crystal

                      I can see that, for sure! He’s very smart and will do well here.

                    • Crystal

                      I’d love to see him chat with Acyutananda, another incredibly intelligent prolife man. Those two could do summit …

                    • Mr. G.

                      At least one definition of murder is “unlawful killing”. Some forms of killing are not unlawful and those who kill in those situations are not subject to being charged with murder.

              • Paul

                I don’t thinks it works that way. If you wish to find someone responsible, you need to establish a theory of cause linking the speech to the act as an inseparable link in the chain of events leading to the act. You would need to try to falsify it, to remove the speech and test to see if the act happened anyway. Asking someone to state “why not” is asking them to prove why your supposition is false. It would be up to you to show its truth.

                • Crystal

                  I don’t personally have any suppositions, if that’s what you mean. It’s the opinions of others I’m talking about here.

                  • Paul

                    Who? Until you relate that, the opinions of others are indistinguishable from any supposition you might make.

                    • Crystal

                      Advocates for legal abortion believe that. I don’t. I’m prolife.

                    • Paul

                      I see. The term “informed” has multiple meanings. It could mean that your opinions or beliefs are informed by others and It seems that is not the sense you meant. A less archaic way of relating it might be to say that you were told. Informed is too easily confused with instruction by authority to me. But then again, I go all archaic from time to time :-)

                    • Crystal

                      It’s told, then.

                    • Paul

                      Well, if someone told you that speaking what one believes is true is a cause for violence through incitement and therefore confers blame, I would wonder how any truth could be offered without us all being mass murderers. I would say the person making that indictment was practicing deceitful argument by hiding behind the false concern for those who might have violence incited upon them. It’s a nifty way to avoid the reality of the idea, make it a taboo subject.

                    • Crystal

                      Oh, absolutely!

                      In other words, “BE SILENT.”

                      I even heard one advocate for legal abortion call for the government to persecute all prolifers because of the bad actions of some. I find such rhetoric distressing.

                    • Paul

                      I find it self-serving. I have found little conviction in the positions of “Pro-choicers”. It seems more like an issue of convenience to push a flawed ideology to me. A political wedge to divide opponents into discrete clumps so they are less pesky. An elite solution to an unsolvable problem. All it does is justify elites.

                    • Crystal

                      Although I have found both positives and negatives in legal abortion advocate philosophy, I agree with you.

                      Positives:
                      1) a strong love for bodily autonomy
                      2) a deep respect for women’s choices

                      and possibly a few other traits. I state this for many reasons, not the least of which is that bodily autonomy and consent arguments can be used to fight forced sterilisation and forced euthanasia, which is good.

                      For all these, their arguments, no matter how brilliant, cannot justify the wrong that is done every time an innocent human life is snuffed out of the world. They are academic, philosophical attempts to justify the unjustifiable. I’m a simple person, with a simple knowledge that “abortion stops a beating heart” and that is all I need to know.

  • lady_black

    Who said anything about forcing to abort. Learn to read, for Pete’s sake.

  • lady_black

    You finally get it! Congratulations. Except, of course, the act of rape is very much a forcible act.

    • Shifty

      Then clearly the answer here is to force the child again!

      • lady_black

        I hope that’s facetious…

        • Crystal

          From my talks with Shifty, I’m sure it is.

  • lady_black

    That’s your opinion.

  • lady_black

    You can’t kill someone by not breathing for them. Just saying…

    • Crystal

      lady_black, it’s a pleasure to have you here. However, please let me respectfully draw your attention to the commenting policy:

      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

      • lady_black

        What is wrong with what I said? It’s the truth. I see no policy violation.
        To be honest, I see this philosophically.
        For most of history, men have had their way with just about everything. There’s just this one little thing men have never controlled. That’s pregnancy and birth.
        For a long time, nobody cared, either. It would have been seen as unseemly for a man to even discuss “women’s business” much less have any part of it.
        All that started to change with the advent of modern contraception. Once men realized they would no longer be in charge, and would have to share some of the power, well, some men have a tough time with accepting that. Some responded by coming down on the only area that has always been under the control of women. So now, there is objection to IUDs and birth control pills based on the off chance that a fertilized ovum might not implant. And women need a permanent scar and loss of fertility to justify saving their lives from a tubal pregnancy. It’s all pretty nonsensical, and it’s all pretty new.
        Don’t get me wrong. I love my kids, and I’ve never had an abortion. That’s more good luck than good management. I was just lucky. I was never that woman with pulmonary hypertension who was 11 weeks pregnant, and a mother of four other kids. If I had been, would I have aborted? You had better believe it. I place primary value on my own life, and the lives of the kids who are here and depending upon me. And that would be that. There can be other pregnancies.

        • Crystal

          Nothing is wrong with what you said.

          I wanted to let you know in advance what Josh’s rules are so you don’t break them, because I want you to be able to comment here without repercussions.

          Civil disagreement is very much welcome here, however, and I appreciate your sharing your thoughts on the topic at hand.

          • lady_black

            Danke.

            • Crystal

              Gern geschehen.

              (Hope I got it right, LOL)

  • Crystal

    Hi, PJ, it’s me again :)

    On a case like eight-year olds carrying to term, I believe sensitivity on both sides is required, especially as there won’t be an answer that will satisfy everyone.

    Here’s what Josh had to say about it:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/joshbrahm/why_rhonda_changed_her_mind_about_whether_to_use_the_word_8220pro_choice8221/#comment-2286489209

  • Crystal

    I see you’re having a tough time with Tiki Torch :(

    I’m having a tough time dealing with a nasty person at TFA who hates trans people :(

    Welcome to the club!

  • Crystal

    How’s it been going, PJ, other than with Tiki Torch?

    I wrote to them again via another email address. It is confirmed. Commenting with a Disqus account is not allowed :(

    So if you want to talk to me we’ll have to talk here or at SPL, just as I mentioned.

  • Shifty

    Hi Josh. I’m wondering as to why my comments to Javelina Harker were deleted?
    What was wrong with them?

    • Crystal

      By all rights they should be up there. I didn’t see anything wrong with them myself. Possibly the word “pusillanimous” could have cause offence; I don’t know why myself.

      Thanks for coming back, Shifty!

      • Shifty

        I don’t believe that he removed Javelina’s comment with that word in it.
        I’d really like to hear Josh’s reasoning.
        I don’t think I can post here If he truly thinks those posts were worthy of deletion, that’s as civil as it gets really.
        Thanks for the Welcome, Crystal.
        I had to take a step back for a while. But I probably could use a few more days still.

        • Crystal

          Hey, you could come to SPL couldn’t you?

          http://blog.secularprolife.org/

          I hope you’re not banned there.

          • Shifty

            No I don’t think so, I’ll give it a test.

          • Shifty

            Not banned. ;)

            • Crystal

              Yeah!

              If you don’t like it here, take your convos there. I’ll see ya :)

            • I was banned there.

        • I deleted a lot of comments from you were you calling people names. It would take me too long to find whatever deleted comment you’re referring to right now. I think I was being gracious by not banning you for how much name-calling you did. Now I’m going through hundreds of new comments from the last 48 hours, and moderating that.

          • I don’t know what that deleted comment said. Another person, one of whose comments you deleted, is an online friend of mine. I don’t know what that comment said either. But overall I’m clear that your moderation efforts have made this site a better space for dialogue. Thanks for doing the extra work that was required this time.

          • Shifty

            Sorry Josh.
            Seeing these trolls clog up your thread really put me in a bad place.

    • Javelina Harker

      With your nod, Shifty, I’m pleased to edit my comments to you to be less abrasive; you’ve treated me well and I’m happy to PAX. The only reason I haven’t is a sense of accountability for my posts, good or bad.

      For the record I neither flagged nor reported you.

      • Shifty

        Please leave them up Javelina.
        They weren’t abrasive at all.
        I tried being cordial and polite to a few people here.
        Parting ways with site.
        I cherish your civility with me here and would like you to know that your writing is pretty decent.
        Take care.

        • Javelina Harker

          Back at you. Wherever you roam.

          I don’t care about affiliation or party or stance, only how *I* am treated and interacted with. You did not deserve my initial hostility, but I remain accountable for my good faith error in response.

          You’re not my enemy. Be well.

          • Jim H

            So, this is what they talk like at the grown-up’s table. More people should give it a try.
            Kudos.

            • Javelina Harker

              Thank you; I work hard at being civil and factual. I can be horrifically nasty — I view it as a personal weakness — so I am very, very careful most of the time to remind myself there is a real person on the other end.

              I do slip sometimes, especially when I’m stretched thin IRL. Then I take a break. :)

              • Jim H

                Good advice.
                Take care.

  • Crystal

    Aww, that’s okay. It’s not a homework assignment! Will be looking forwards to the answers when you can give them, LOL :)

    BTW this troll is just abusive. Wade through the entire convo if you have the spoons for it:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/10/07/transgender-woman-attacked-and-killed-as-baptists-advocate-curing-transgenderism-with-prayer/

    I’ve told him what’s what. I was called a vile piece of filth, etc. Yet I find it interesting he never answered my questions on life issues. Because his position isn’t prolife though he claims to be a conservative Catholic.

    Oh, dear, I’m getting off-topic again.

    As for your trials I see that Tiki Torch is extremely nasty. She uses several of the same words as Sharon – pro-lout, pro-loafer. She’s awful. Prolifers weak and spineless indeed, I’d have shown her a thing or two.

  • Crystal

    Because love for strangers is an abstract notion, and as my fellow commenter on TFA said, when humans see something foreign and don’t know how to respond to it, a common reaction is anger.

    • Shifty

      PJ4 does not love her fellow man.

      • Crystal

        Shifty, the rules say that you cannot bring quarrels from other blogs onto this one. This is a place for civil discourse about the topic of abortion. I am deeply sorry for any bad treatment people receive on the Internet, however. Please know you have my sympathies.

        • Shifty

          I just don’t appreciate civil dissent being deleted. Then you have these trolls coming here bringing their silly off topic comments.

          • Crystal

            Awww …

            Hugs.

            I thought it puzzling myself. Perhaps it’s a glitch in the system?

            You could contact Josh via email:

            blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/contact/

            If you don’t like his answer, please at least write me one more comment to tell me a place I can come where guest commenting is permitted as I do not possess an account at present due to very unusual circumstances.

            • Shifty

              I’ll look into it. Your unusual circumstances are curious. How old are you anyway?

              • Crystal

                In my early twenties, and I don’t feel comfortable explaining online.

                • Shifty

                  Ok

                  • Crystal

                    Thank you for accepting my need for privacy :)

                    • Shifty

                      Of course. Thank you for respecting curious and nosy peeps. Lulz

                    • Crystal

                      Yeah … !

  • Shifty

    That echo chamber gets pretty wide, don’t you think?

  • Shifty

    Can you be intellectually honest for once?

  • Crystal

    Thanks very much :)

    I give the credit to a fellow TFA commenter. She is the wise one.

    As for the mess this forum is fast becoming again, I think I should tell you that I comment for two reasons:

    1) to “minister” to others
    2) to argue respectfully with them

    All very good reasons I personally don’t appreciate quarrels.

    I liked you from the moment I saw you :)

  • Crystal

    I think so too :(

  • Crystal

    Very wise, PJ. Stay out of it if you can.

  • Crystal

    What’s COTR? Does it allow guests to comment?

    • Mr. G.

      COTR allows all Disqus registered folks to comment. That said, the reality is that, if you’re not sufficiently right wing, you’ll soon be banned from posting there even if you’re civil in your approach

      • Crystal

        While I think their articles are interesting, I’m too left-wing for them generally – not always, but generally, I think.

        • Mr. G.

          I hear that. It may be that your generally “pro-life” position saves you.

          • Crystal

            What do you mean?

            • Mr. G.

              I mean that they are somewhat outspokenly “pro-life” and sharing that position with them has resulted in them cutting you some slack with regard to other issues on which you may be to their left.

              • Crystal

                Probably true, LOL :)

                They would be more likely to listen to me because of it, I think.

  • Crystal

    Yes, and I’m glad to see you’re okay, Tom. Will remember for next time, thanks!

    • Thomas

      Why do you patronize me?

      • Crystal

        I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to patronise you. I would never do that intentionally. Please explain how I patronised you and I will not do it again. Many apologies.

        My comment was meant to say that I was happy you weren’t hurt over nasty invectives, partially because I am a very sensitive person and I bruise inside really fast.

        • Thomas

          You stated that you’re glad that I feel okay although I did not indicate in any of my previous comments that I do not. In my original comment I only referenced concern for the way proaborts twist this unfortunate event. Makes sense?

          • Crystal

            Yes, and I’m sorry, Tom. As I stated I was worried you might be very sensitive to harsh commentary, like I am.

            • I thought you sounded nice. You’ve been nice to me, and I thank you.

              • Crystal

                That’s all right. I like being nice to my fellow commenters generally, provided they don’t push my buttons on racism and name-calling, LOL.

            • Jim H

              You said nothing to be sorry for. I’ve yet to see a comment where you have. He’s being an argumentative drama queen, probably because I hurt his feelings. I would apologize, but I can’t honestly say I’m sorry, particularly when he continue to use proabort and stereotype people and views.
              If he wants to do that he should go back to the environment where places he posts where that is acceptable and quit trying to “poison the well” here.
              Keep up the good work.

            • lady_black

              Ignore it. There is nothing wrong with telling someone you’re glad they’re OK, regardless of whether or not they’ve said they aren’t OK.

              • Crystal

                Thank you :)

      • lady_black

        Oh, MY. I don’t see her patronizing you.

      • Jim H

        She probably thinks you are going to hurt yourself, because you are coming across as not being too tightly wrapped. Particularly by taking offense with her concern over you.
        Slow your roll a little man!

    • Mr. G.

      His use of the term “pro-abort” provides some insight. Almost no one is “pro-abort”, The far more honest term is “pro-choice”.

  • Crystal

    I had a talk to them. Unfortunately, no guest commenters either. Ugh. Looks like it’ll have to be SPL or ERI for us then.

  • Crystal

    Yeah, I knew an advocate for legal abortion who acted horrible to me once. I was in tears by teatime. It was a very intense experience. She humiliated me in front of all my online friends.

    I could tell stories …

  • Mr. G.

    That shouldn’t bother you much since there are almost no “pro-aborts”

  • Crystal

    If the trolls follow you and start being insulting, Josh will warn them or ban them. No worries, PJ.

  • Ann Morgan

    Yes, it is so hard to understand why anyone would hate someone who wants to torture and enslave them for the sake of such CUTE mindless meat.

  • Ann Morgan

    Does it bother you to cut up your steak?

    • Crystal

      If I was not a vegetarian at heart, of course not, because the steak would be dead. Unborn persons are living.

      Ann, I believe I should remind you of the commenting policy; please read it:

      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

  • Ann Morgan

    So, what you are saying here, is that if some pervert is sodomizing a ‘pwecious baybee’, I should either stand around wringing my hands or go whine about it on the internet, rather than use ‘force and violence’.

    There is no right to someone else’s body. Or any property belonging to someone else. If you have managed to get a hold of or occupy something belonging to someone else, it will be removed, or you will be removed. Even if it is necessary to use ‘force and violence’. Even if it costs you your ‘very life’. Even if you are really cute and even if spoiled teenage girls are really sad.

    • latinovet

      “There is no right to someone else’s body.”
      You are such a hateful and stalking hypocrite!
      With all your years of college biology that you boast about, why have you NOT disproved that human life begins at conception? Oh, that’s right, you can’t!
      Yet you dare say the aforementioned comment and condone abortion?
      HYPOCRITE!

    • Concerned American

      There is no right to someone else’s body.

      If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself…
      Why do you believe you have a right to a baby’s body?

      • lady_black

        “If you truly belive this, then why would you spend large sums money attempting to create a baby, to impregnate yourself…”
        I certainly wouldn’t spend any amount of money trying to create a baby, and knowing Ann Morgan, she wouldn’t either. That being said, adults who wish to procreate have every right to do so. The right to procreate is in no way, shape or form a “right to someone else’s body.”
        It’s the human right of adults to create a family (or not), and you have no right to interfere in that in any way.

        • Concerned American

          Ann stated that she spent 10k trying to get pregnant.
          So, you are admitting that Ann is a liar?

          • lady_black

            So what if she did? That’s her right.

    • Nordog6561

      You are a very sick, demented, ghoul.

  • Ann Morgan

    Then you’re good with clamping off an artery leading to the uterus, right?

    Let me guess, dead fetuses are too specialty-special to dismember. Certainly they are too special to do medical research on, such as is often done on other dead bodies, because a dead fetus is so much more important and special than a live infant. Especially since that would get around your real purpose of making the woman suffer as much as possible by removing it in small pieces, rather than one large one.

    How about this – I will make you eat a grapefruit. You will prove how easy it is to get a large object through a small hole by letting me stuff it intact, down your throat. If you prefer it be cut up, then you will have proven that you are a forced birth liar.

  • Jim H

    “You honestly need to see me in action on proabort sites but unfortunately a good number of them banned me for a well-reasoned dissent.”

    That seems to be the antithesis of what is expected on this forum, yet you brag about it. You are apparently proud of how you engage people with opposing views, even though it gets you banned and renders your impact null. You use the term proabort, which is simplistic and stereotypical, intending it to be pejorative, but then claim your argument is well-reasoned. That seems contradictory and oxymoronic.
    I’m fine with you not engaging me. But, don’t expect that to stop me from doing so when you make comments like that on this forum and try to let the snake into the garden of Eden.

    • Well-reasoned dissent is absolutely encouraged on this forum. If what got Thomas banned at pro-choice blogs was for disagreeing at all, that doesn’t make me concerned about his communication methods. If on the other hand he got banned because he was coming across like a jerk, even unintentionally, that would concern me.

      • Jim H

        Yes Josh. that is what makes your site so different than most. You expect people to act like grown-ups even if they disagree. That seems to be rare for any internet discussion/comment forums.
        I find Thomas’ use of the term “pro-abort” itself to be misrepresentative of the views of those he applies it to; i.e., anyone who is not pro-life in the strictest sense, which happens to be the majority of Americans. It is devise and inhibits finding common ground on the abortion issue.

        • Crystal

          “You expect people to act like grown-ups even if they disagree.”

          Yeah, that’s the same reason I appreciate this website, because people are not allowed to abuse here.

          How’s it been going Jim? I’ve missed seeing you lately.

          • Jim H

            I’m doing okay. How about yourself?

            • Crystal

              Fine (one great thing that happened recently is that I’ve found an awesome guy and we’ve become friends!), but I’ve missed you a lot, with your critical thinking skills that seemed to add muster to the conversations, Jim. I see you got yourself into a mess at LAN :(

              I don’t mean this insensitively but rather as a statement of fact – I do miss PJ4 too and I am unsure how to communicate with her as circumstantially speaking I’m in a tight squeeze and feel it would be risky to get an account :(

              Would you mind coming to these pages and we can resume discussion there if you’d like:

              https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/friendship/

              blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/responding-to-the-astute-observation-that-i-am-a-man/

              https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/will-there-be-a-needed-spike-in-adoption-rates-if-abortion-becomes-illegal/

              Thanks for stopping by!

  • Ann Morgan

    So your claim here is that the baby comes out in a painless puff of smoke, and that you don’t want to force women to remain pregnant against their will?

    • YouHateMe

      Good Lord. When did children become a curse to filth like yourself. Er, dang. Asked and answered.
      No wonder eastern nations and Latinos are overtaking whites and blacks.

  • Ann Morgan

    Do you bite your lips or cuticles?

    • latinovet

      Do you pull the legs off of grasshoppers?

    • Cletus B Neckbeard

      She hires people to do that. I’m next up…

  • Mr. G.

    Are you or are you not in favor of banning abortion?

  • Mr. G.

    Speaking of strawman arguments….. tsk, tsk.

  • lady_black

    No, I’m sorry, Tom. That just isn’t true. There is no such thing as someone who only supports abortion on demand. And if there is such a person, I’ve never met one.
    If I *were* to meet such a person, I would tell them that is an anti-choice position.
    No, pregnancy is not slavery. FORCING a woman to remain pregnant is slavery. I’ve been pregnant three times (that I know of) and have three children. I’m not going to call myself a slave. That would be absurd. But I’m also not going to deny that there are two words in the English language for a person who cannot exercise autonomy over his body. The two words are slave and prisoner.
    I think there should be way fewer abortions. I have a clear idea of how that should be accomplished, and none of it involves passing draconian legislation. First, contraception (all kinds, but particularly LTRCs) should be widely available, and free. Secondly, quality pre-natal care and birthing options should be available. Also free. Thirdly, social support should be robust. It’s a three-pronged approach, and I guarantee it will reduce abortions on the front end, and on the back end, because few women will see it as their best option. It will cost money. YOUR job is to convince legislators that it’s money well spent.

    • Jim H

      Could you clarify what you mean by: “There is no such thing as someone who only supports abortion on demand.” Are you saying people support things like contraception and abortion is their back up plan?

      I found your comment that there are two words in the English language for a person who cannot exercise autonomy over his body interesting. If we consider the two words slave and prisoner, a slave has no say over his condition and has done nothing to cause it. Conversely a prisoner in jail is someone who has done something to cause his/her condition, so it may be a more appropriate metaphor.

      The issue I have with people who talk about bodily autonomy and pregnancy is that, except in the case of rape, they have voluntarily participated in the action that has led to that loss of autonomy.

      I agree with you that there should be way fewer abortions and that it can be accomplished without passing draconian legislation. I further agree that contraception (all kinds, but particularly LTRCs) should be widely available, and free. There have been various programs in the U.S. that have shown how effective that approach can be.

      However, as you might know, there will doubtless be resistance because many pro-life supporters see such contraceptives as potentially abortive and that the chance they are outweighs their benefit.

      I also agree social support should be robust. To me, it is a situation of putting your money where your mouth is. Unfortunately, it seems the conservative voices that condemn abortion the most also support social programs the least. It seems that their concern for the fetus only lasts while it is a fetus. Once it is out and properly a baby, it seems they think it should be on its own.

      • lady_black

        There is no act that anyone can “perform” that results in a loss of bodily autonomy. Not even the act of dying. I know what you’re trying to imply. What right to determine what happens to his body does a male lose for engaging in sex? Because that reeks of double standard to me.
        The fact is that even prisoners are not required to give of their bodily resources for the benefit of another party. Nor are corpses. That requires specific consent. For example, if you consent to donate a kidney, the doctor can’t also help himself to a lobe of your liver while he’s in there. Even though the liver lobe will grow back. It just wouldn’t be right to take without consent.
        Now we also know that consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and that consent is neither once for all time. Consent can be withdrawn at any time by a free person. That’s in the middle of a sex act or in the middle of pregnancy. Whether that results in an abortion or a delivery depends upon the stage of gestation.
        There is no such thing as “abortive contraception.” That is a contradiction in terms, because an abortion can only happen once someone is actually pregnant. People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another. So, effective contraception (IUDs, implants, sterilization) must be a part of the picture. Not becoming pregnant is clearly not the same as abortion, and you yourself admit the impact of LARCs on abortion rates.
        I absolutely agree with you that it’s a matter of putting your money where your mouth is. The problem is that too many aren’t convinced of the truth in that statement. Anyone who thinks that reducing abortions will be simple, easy, and without costs isn’t firing on all cylinders.

        • Jim H

          “There is no act that anyone can “perform” that results in a loss of bodily autonomy.”

          In your previous comment, you said “…there are two words in the English language for a person who cannot exercise autonomy over his body. The two words are slave and prisoner.”

          You have lost me. It seems you are contradicting yourself. Does the act of incarcerating someone “result in the loss of bodily autonomy” or is there “no act that anyone can “perform” that results in a loss of bodily autonomy”?

          “What right to determine what happens to his body does a male lose for engaging in sex? Because that reeks of double standard to me.”

          I don’t think he loses any right, but it not a matter of fairness or standards, its a matter of biology.

          “There is no such thing as “abortive contraception.” That is a contradiction in terms, because an abortion can only happen once someone is actually pregnant.”

          You can only say that if you believe that pregnancy begins at implantation rather than conception. I believed that implantation was the consensus view. I was wrong and so are you. It turns out the majority of doctors go with conception.

          “People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another.”

          That is simply not true.Depending on who those people are or how many there are of them, their opinions can have a significant impact on the rights of many others.

          “and you yourself admit the impact of LARCs on abortion rates.”

          Why wouldn’t I admit how effective they are. It is simply a fact.

          • lady_black

            “You have lost me. It seems you are contradicting yourself. Does the act of incarcerating someone “result in the loss of bodily autonomy” or is there “no act that anyone can “perform” that results in a loss of bodily autonomy”?

            An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn’t lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy.

            “You can only say that if you believe that pregnancy begins at implantation rather than conception. I believed that implantation was the consensus view. I was wrong and so are you. It turns out the majority of doctors go with conception.”

            Wrong. And NO “the majority of doctors” do NOT go with “conception.” I’M not even sure ANY of them do. You’ve no doubt heard of in-vitro (which means outside the body) fertilization? No doctor in his right mind would call a petri dish “pregnant.” Nor once the embryos are implanted is the woman considered “pregnant” unless one of them implants and begins to grow a placenta.

            “I’m not sure what the point of that comment is. Depending on who those people or how many there are of them, their opinions can have a significant impact on the rights of many others.”
            This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority. I’m speaking of the United States. If you live in some dictatorship or theocracy, scratch that part, as it doesn’t apply to you. IN the United States, it applies to me.

            • Jim H

              “An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn’t lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy.”

              You are simple playing word games. But, that’s fine lets look at it semantically: i.e., based on the meanings of the words:

              Autonomy is simply an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Bodily simply means of or concerning the body.

              Bodily autonomy is therefore simply an individual’s ability (synonym for capacity) to determination or govern their own body.

              You admit that “An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy.” So I would ask they lose the freedom of movement of what? The only logical response is their body, of course.

              So, based on semantics; i.e., the meanings of the words involved, it is simply incorrect to say he doesn’t lose bodily autonomy.

              Conceptually, bodily autonomy is not limited to the reproductive aspect of the body. So, the fact that “a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy” may be true, it does nothing to negate the fact that controlling a convicts freedom of movement also results in a loss of their bodily autonomy.

              “Wrong. And NO “the majority of doctors” do NOT go with “conception. I’M not even sure ANY of them do. .”

              You need to read something other than whatever propaganda you have been reading and be better informed, and less dogmatic, with your assertions.

              Implantation is not the consensus of the OB GYN’s in the country and repeating negatives and using caps does not change that. In fact, implantation is the minority view.

              A study of “Obstetrician-gynecologists’ beliefs about when pregnancy begins” was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology — February 2012, Volume 206, Issue 2, Pages 132.e1–132.e7. it stated:

              One-half of US obstetrician-gynecologists (57%) believe pregnancy begins at conception. Fewer (28%) believe it begins at implantation, and 16% are not sure.

              “This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority.

              More repetition and caps. I have pretty well lost hope in a civil intelligent conversation with you, at this point, I’m glad this is almost over.

              Your original comment was:

              “People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another.”

              How do you think rights are determined? For example you mentioned the constitution. Were the men who wrote the constitution not people who believed what they wished to believe, defied a king, and had a huge impact on the rights of a whole lot of “anothers”. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority as a direct result of their beliefs.

              Have you ever read the Federalist Papers. It was a series of papers arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius (under which all of The Federalist Papers were published),

              Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings. It addresses the question of how to guard against “factions”, or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, united republic would be better able to guard against those dangers than would smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject.

              So the fact that rights are not subjected to the whims of others and that the rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority are the results of the beliefs of people like Madison which had and do still have considerable impact.
              .

    • Wild_Bird

      Nonsense. Actions have consequences. If a woman fails to take the necessary precautions to prevent a pregnancy before it happens, then at that point she should take responsibility for the baby that she, through her actions, has created.
      You have totally perverted the true meaning of “slavery”.

      • Crystal

        Responsibility argument, yes?

        And yes, unborn persons are slaves to their parents.

        • Wild_Bird

          “Responsibility argument, yes?

          And yes, unborn persons are slaves to their parents.”

          Your fundamental disregard for innocent unborn human life is, to put it mildly, morally indefensible.

          From the right to life flow all other human rights. Without Life one cannot exercise Liberty, and without Liberty one cannot pursue Happiness. The right to life is a prerequisite for all other rights. Thus, the right to life is THE fundamental human right.

          Just as slavery is a gross violation of human rights and an abomination, so is abortion. Today it is convenient for many like yourself to dismiss an unborn child as something only partially human or not human at all or a mere “slaves to their parents,” just as it was convenient two centuries ago for plantation owners to dismiss blacks as merely three-fifths of a person. Measuring human life by race or by cognitive capacity does not capture the
          entire essence of being human, but rather limits the nature of being human to a convenient set of characteristics.

          To deny the fundamental nature of the Right to Life is to deny the basis of all human rights. If, as you and your ilk suggest, we were to accept the assignment of arbitrary precedence to human rights, we then must permit the justification of any infringement upon the rights of another. In a society where anyone can elevate their right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness above another’s right to live, the weak are helpless before those who are able to assert their rights more strongly.

          The laws of the selfish moral relativists on the pro-abortion ilk are the laws of convenience; they will cherish the rights of others until those rights interfere with their infinite capacity for self-interest.

          The lengths that people on the pro-abortion side will go to justify the indefensible never ceases to amaze me.

          Your reasoning demonstrates how utterly bereft pro-aborts are of compassion and basic human decency.

          • Crystal

            With respect, you misunderstand me. I am prolife, not pro-abort. I can sympathise with and share your frustration at the dehumanising of the unborn persons. I was simply remarking on your use of the responsibility argument because that is one our side uses a lot to say that abortion is wrong.

            If you doubt my prolifism please read through the comment thread and you will see where I stand very quickly.

          • Crystal

            I was also noting that unborn persons are slaves via the law, not via my own personal views. IMO they are entitled to life from the moment of conception.

            • lady_black

              “IMO they are entitled to life from the moment of conception.”
              LOL. Well, they aren’t going to GET it. That isn’t how human reproduction even works. There’s a lot of waste, and not one darn thing you can do about it.

          • IrrationalHumanBeing

            “Today it is convenient for many like yourself to dismiss an unborn child as something only partially human or not human at all or a mere “slaves to their parents”

            When YOU pay all the costs of human beings to live a middle class or wealthy class life-style and quality of life … when you end poverty and discrimination … then YOU can argue this delusional LIE about “LIFE” … versus The Pro Birth or Pro Death Movement simply wanting to own/control every female body in American and the Planet. If you believe in some fundamental right to life, then focus on eliminate all horrible conditions post-birth … not inside a females womb … that prematurely kill humans beings daily.

            Worry about your sex life and let other teens and adults regulate their sex life and reproductive abilities. I don’t recall YOU being in the hood where I grew up, offering to provide my family of 10 siblings any wealthy to enjoy life … or you preventing all those rabid racist citizens and cops beating us down post-birth.

            You Pro Life are Domestic Terrorist and should be viewed and dealt with like such!

            • Wild_Bird

              “You Pro Life are Domestic Terrorist and should be viewed and dealt with like such!”
              Actually, it is the pro-aborts like you whose hands are drenched in the blood of millions of slaughtered pre-born babies.

              • Crystal

                May I please remind you of the commenting policy:

                https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2/

                Please read it before proceeding here. Josh’s rules are so strict that even a few of your friends failed to pass muster.

                • Wild_Bird

                  Are you Josh’s spokesperson?
                  If not, then kindly worry about yourself.

                  • Crystal

                    Of course not. I simply don’t want to see you get banned. I was making friends with PJ4 and Infadelicious and BOOM! They’re gone. It was quite a shock to me, and I don’t want the same happening to you.

                    • Wild_Bird

                      Frankly, after hearing the comments from fellow pro-lifers, including the ones you mentioned, it does not matter to me either way.

                      Thank you for your concern Crystal. Have a great week. -:)

                    • Crystal

                      Have a great week too, Wild_Bird. I deeply appreciate your barrage at me when you misunderstood my position because you clearly and concisely stated my views so well. I hope you don’t mind if I borrow it, LOL.

                      Also please let PJ, Infadelicious, and all the other banned folks and the ones that won’t comment for fear of banning know that I appreciated their company, conversation, and contributions, and if they want to see me again they can write in at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.

                    • Wild_Bird

                      Thank you for your comment Crystal.
                      PJ4 and Infadelicious are great. I hold them both in high regard.
                      This post will serve as a message to PJ4 and Infa that Crystal holds them in high regard and that you would be happy if they re-connect with you at Secular Pro-Life Perspectives.
                      Kind regards,
                      Wild_Bird

                    • Crystal

                      Yes, but can they see it?

                      Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL.

                      And thank you!

                    • Wild_Bird

                      “Yes, but can they see it?

                      Please pass the comment on to them via LAN if possible. This is also a message to Jed, Paul, Javelina Harker, etc. I appreciated them so much, LOL.

                      And thank you!”
                      I do not have any of their email addresses. My reply to your post on Disqus will have to suffice.
                      Note you are free to register on Disqus and follow anyone you wish also.
                      I cannot even see your dashboard.

                    • Crystal

                      Hey, this is how you can get it to them:

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2408439366

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/why-pro-life-advocates-are-not-responsible-for-the-planned-parenthood-shooting/#comment-2408462399

                      There’s a little button at the bottom of each comment that says “Share”. You put your cursor over it and see three little icons. The third one will drag the comment address out and create a new tab where you can view the comment to your satisfaction.

                      I thank you for writing back. Did I say I appreciated your fiery post at me?

                  • Wow, she was just trying to help…

                    • Wild_Bird

                      You are absolutely pathetic.
                      I haven’t posted on your pathetic site in 2 months, nor do I have any intention of posting on your site in the future.
                      You are so full of hubris and exaggerated self-importance. No wonder many of my pro-life friends dumped your site.

                    • Crystal

                      “You are so full of hubris and exaggerated self-importance.”

                      I must respectfully disagree with you. I have had an email correspondence of sorts with this guy, and he’s the total opposite of what you said. He nearly always responds to his emails (unlike most of us!), and acknowledges people. He’s treated me with nothing but kindness and I would be honoured to make his further acquaintance if ever I get the chance.

              • Shifty

                You will be banned for speaking that way. Enjoy. :0)

                • Crystal

                  Your behaviour is almost no better, I’m sorry to say.

                  While I would not approach the issue the way he does, I appreciate the fact he told it like it is.

                • Crystal

                  When I say, told it like it is, I mean that I disagree with accusing people but I do agree with decrying the act.

                • Wild_Bird

                  I don’t care if I am banned from this site.
                  You are one very sick puppy little Shifty. Why don’t you get a life?

                  • Shifty

                    You should be banned from Disqus.

                    • Crystal

                      That is cruel.

            • Crystal

              “You Pro Life are Domestic Terrorist and should be viewed and dealt with like such!”

              How do you know that for sure?

              Also, may I point your attention to the comment policy please:

              blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

              I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                How do I know? Easy, that’s how my values and politiks define YOU. Do you think YOU are the only Americans whom get to have a political opinion and value system? I don’t have to validate or affirm you value system or politiks … or is that what you’re suggesting? Your group can try to get the State to rape women, force them to procreate, bring children into they world without consent, and everyone (but especially all females) should just roll over and tolerate it. Roe v Wade is the Constitutional law. If you don’t like it, then organize to get it revoke. But why terrorize females!

                • Crystal

                  With respect, you’ve made a few mistakes.

                  First off, I am not American. Second, I believe in the core doctrine of prolife, which is protecting human life from the moment of conception to natural death. However, I agree that the mainstream PL movement is doing more harm than good with its incremental laws. What I would like to see happen is superior technological alternatives that will allow unborn persons to live while granting women bodily autonomy, because I have talked extensively to abortion advocates and agree with the principle of respecting the bodily autonomy of both unborn and pregnant persons.

                  BTW, prolife to me means protecting ALL life of humans and animals, not just unborn human life. Which is why I appreciate the work that Black Lives Matter does.

                  • IrrationalHumanBeing

                    I’ll meet you half-way. If the PL gets the technology, ends all poverty conditions and discrimination that destroy post-birth-life, and women control their bodies/minds … then I’ll contribute my billions to that politks. Otherwise, I will always critique the Pro Life Movement as being sexist, racist, class-bigoted, utopian, religious bigots … whom target female autonomy/bodies/power:)

                    • Crystal

                      Well, we finally found something to come half-way on, and that’s good.

                      I’m not sure poverty will ever be completely eradicated but it helps to reduce it, yes?

                      Also I advocate for contraceptives, sex education, and social safety nets. I am sorry that the mainstream PL movement hasn’t made preserving bodily autonomy and unborn human life together its primary focus.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      I’m sadden that so many females in America and worldwide permit PATRIARCHS to dictate their reality … this historical and present-day FACT saddens me more than any issue on the planet, even racism and I’m social construct BLACK, lol. I don’g get it, never will, and it saddens me. I understand all the historical ISM oppression that got us here. I understand all nations are comparable developed. But it’s a FACT that 4.4 billion females have a power that all males don’t! What basic power — males want sex … males want progeny … males need to be propped up to do all the good, bad, and ugly things we do … and without females … all males are DEAD … LOL.

                      So, if females are fundamental to human existence … all patriarchy rule … why continue to validate it, be complicity, duplicit … why CHOOSE to be viewed, treated, and rule as “inferior”? It’s sad! Women in America and world-wide are the majority of our species. They have the minds, bodies, spirits, genius … and more … to LEADER our species … and in a more evolved way than males have demonstrated as Captains of The Titantic:) Yet over 55 years, I’ve see slow but too often regressive submission, complicity, and deference to MALES … 24-7/365 worldwide … and in exchange for what benefits? To be told your body/mind is fundamentally and primarily a Patriarchy Incubator … Yikes!

                    • Crystal

                      I’ve read feminist theory enough to sympathise with your views. We are definitely a special breed. I saved your comment for future reference.

                      As I mentioned, my primary focus is foetal rights and not punishing women for sex, hence the mention of high techs.

                      I don’t choose to be viewed as an incubator. I’m not one. What I do choose is to seek out a solution that will genuinely reduce abortions while allowing women their right to live as they see fit.

                      I do appreciate your concern for our sex, and I have noticed the obsequious deference to male judgment myself. Which is why I’m trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can’t dominate me.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      ” I don’t choose to be viewed as an incubator. I’m not one … I’m trying to reclaim my femininity back, so these guys can’t dominate me.”

                      And this self-autonomy, politiks, religious view on your part as a female I 100% agree with .. noting YOU and no female on this planet should never EVER have to need our approval, permission, validation, partnership, or coalition per se to be YOU in all of the good, bad, and ugly ways humans can be. I don’t believe ALL FEMALES are perfect or superior to males or inferior to males or even equal. I believe, know as FACT, that all females, all human beings, are diverse in our genetic, biological, cultural totality. I don’t believe in some magical equilibrium or balance. There is the metaphorical 100%. Thus far Patriarchs have maintain a 90% power selfishness … almost god-like hegemony.

                      And many women have fought and died to gain 10%! I just hope as male females as individuals and as a group (world wide) will strive to gain a minimum of 60% power as to whether or how our species evolves or becomes extinct … where I’m 100% convinced that if most females don’t become leaders, progressive, less discriminatory, less mystical stewards of this fragile human experiment, if they keep deferring this power and responsibility to most males, then the aggressive socialization and privileges of males will stair our precarious Human Ship into WWIII extinction … sink and kill us ALL … and maybe all other life on this planet.

                      For all the good patriarchs (with female complicity) have done, we’ve too often done some perhaps irreversible bad and horrific ugly things to our species and planet. I give Patriarchs a grade of C for leadership .. meaning Cowards … because we haven’t learned how to share power, share responsibility … be deferential, be humble … stop deluding ourselves that our masculinity … our maleness … was represents, speaks for, some divine and/or secular masculine (usually white) GOD. It’s so tribal … savage … thinking and acting, past and present … and if we aren’t smart … destroy this pro-life/pro-death fragile/precarious human experiment.

                      As a male with many other attributes … but MALE … I’m not optimistic the human species will survive and flourish beyond another 100 years IF patriarchs world wide keep RULING. This doesn’t mean females won’t mess up, make all or even worse leadership mistakes as males. But then Her-Story wise, most females haven’t had the self-determination power and nation-leadership power to find out whether and how they would RULE our species.

                    • Crystal

                      I will answer your thoughts in detail later. You’ve won my respect because you care for us, the women. Thank you :)

                      When I say, embrace my femininity, that means that I will appreciate myself in every way possible including my biological processes. Never mind the offence that causes.

                      I think you will enjoy the Suffragette movie coming out then. I appreciate reading about the struggles women faced just to *vote*.

                    • Crystal

                      I’ve appreciated this conversation so much; it would be an honour for me to bring you to this website where we can talk some more if that’s okay with you:

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/

                      You sound as if you’d get on well with the people there :)

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      I’m honored. Is it a Pro Life website? I’m not into hanging out with PLs.

                      Like your friend said to you in one of his post … he thinks progressives are exclusionary hypocrites because we won’t validate the PLM.

                      Well just like you told him you’ll always be a PL absolute … I’ll always critique the PLs:)

                    • Crystal

                      No it isn’t. It’s a website dealing with a variety of topics. The mainstream commenters would generally share *your* views on the issue of abortion more than mine, although that’s not the only thing discussed.

                    • Crystal

                      Here’s another one I think you’d enjoy:

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/

                      It’s very feminist-oriented, LOL. I learned a lot from her!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      More palatable, LOL. I already posted on your other referral.

                    • Crystal

                      Cool. If you ever want to discuss feminism or Biblical Patriarchy with me, that will be the place to find me. I deeply enjoy Love Joy Feminism and The Friendly Atheist.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “Biblical Patriarchy” … only if our discussion will be one of deconstructing it followed by what is biblical matriarchy and secular matriarchy …. and then subsequent … can YOU envision any worldwide species being neither the P or M cultural hegemony wise and what does that look like, other than fantasies about “heaven” … lol.

                    • Crystal

                      Of course they will be! And don’t fear, our discussions will generally be very earth-centered and worldly, LOL. I hate Biblical Patriarchy and all it stands for with a passion. Unfortunately it is off-topic so I cannot expound but I feel that cult has helped to ruin any credibility conservatives might have had with liberals. They are a crazy lot.

                      I especially loathe Doug Wilson.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “They are a crazy lot.”

                      I’ll defer that DSM 5 or teasing critique to you. I don’t loathe or hate religion or spiritual folks. I just loathe when it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)

                      This Doug Wilson … if so, then now you have some grasp why I’m AGNOSTIC and critical of “White Hegemony” …. ?

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_(theologian)

                    • Crystal

                      “I don’t loathe or hate religion or spiritual folks. I just loathe when
                      it becomes a rationale for killing or murdering or oppressing people:)”

                      You’re right; I should have taken note of that. I am spiritual but not religious myself.

                      I have read that article about Doug Wilson in the past. On seeing it referenced, I can identify with why you’re agnostic and critical of white hegemony. I read portions of his Southern Slavery as it Was with disgust. The man obviously has serious problems with critical thinking skills as it relates to morality :(

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      I haven’t read his works. But maybe someday I will. But just as I have issues with males defining, interpreting, and dictating the realities of females and non-males … I also have issues with whites defining, interpreting, and dictating the realities of non-whites … not to be misconstrued with all human beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as “human beings” . But “hegemony” isn’t for me some “academic scholarly” term or maxist myopic analytical paradigm. It speaks in part to how so many humans can consent, be complicit, duplicit in how bad and ugly we view, relate, and treat each other … yet claim to be smart, moral, civilized, evolved … a human mental-compartmentalization and self-referential mode of reason that continues to both perplex and sadden me … where the estoteric critique “hypocrisy” just doesn’t scratch the surface of this painful disconnect … especially when it comes to western religion … the absurdity of the “golden rule” in-practice not the abstract:)

                    • Crystal

                      “I also have issues with whites defining, interpreting, and dictating the
                      realities of non-whites … not to be misconstrued with all human
                      beings having input (voice) into the complexities of our species as
                      “human beings” .”

                      Can you please explain the difference between the two, as I’m a little mystified.

                      I’ve never really heard of the word “hegemony” before speaking with you, so I would say you taught me something new.

                      http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hegemony

                      “Hegemony is political or cultural dominance or authority over others. The hegemony of the popular kids over the other students means that they determine what is and is not cool.”

                      Based on that definition, I can see totally what you mean – if indeed you *are* working by that definition. In other words, are you saying that people’s choices, how they view themselves, and how they act, are influenced by the cultural and political hegemony around them?

                      PS: I hope you don’t mind if I ask you to take this discussion to at least one of those web pages I mentioned, because we are getting off-topic and I want to respect the moderator’s rules while enjoying our chat. If you’re agreeable, we can take it to that article on nonconsensual sex you enjoyed so much.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Thank you Crystal … if you really are a female, not impersonating one as a male to score political points! Your dictionary definition is correct, although wikipedia probably has a more succinct substantive history of the term … and I’m not Marxist, as you’ll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework. I’ll do to the other article (website) … what’s your aka name there?

                    • Crystal

                      I am female, and proud to be a woman :)

                      I do not believe in being dishonest about my identity, despite my desire for privacy. I’m not sure where I said you were Marxist, but thanks for clarifying.

                      “as you’ll learn about the Italian scholar whom created the term and analytical framework”

                      Please tell me more. Who is this person?

                      “I’ll do to the other article (website) … what’s your aka name there?”

                      It’s Crystal there as well.

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html

                      When I respond to your off-topic comments I will take my responses there and let you know I have done so. Thank you for agreeing to shift the conversation. I do not want your good thoughts deleted just because they weren’t on-par with the theme of this blog.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “I am female, and proud to be a woman :)”

                      Yeah! Me too, 100% to the extent I can affirm YOU .. but please don’t accuse me of brown-nosing like so many on here, lol. I don’t! I keep it authentic, fun, if not imperfect … and know I always run the risk of being banned … a badge of honor for some topics while others I’m apathetic, lol.

                    • Crystal

                      I believe in your integrity. I know you’re not being disrespectful or sexually harassing me. I have experienced that once online and it was *not fun* believe me.

                      BTW: thank you :)

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “I have experienced that once online and it was *not fun* believe me.”

                      Wow, I cannot even fathom what that means in cyberspace and I hope I never unintentionally learn … yikes!

                    • Crystal

                      Making inappropriate comments at me. Awful. I was very afraid. Here’s the whole story:

                      http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2015/11/05/half-of-the-new-canadian-cabinet-members-chose-to-skip-so-help-me-god-in-their-oaths-of-office/#comment-2345535945

                      I felt guilty over that for a long time.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “I was very afraid”

                      Holy Shyt … I’m really clueless about this social media stuff. I cannot imagine folks get this silly or dangerous and in cyber space, it’s not offline reality … it’s all words on a screen, not flesh and blood human beings … fascinating!

                    • Crystal

                      I don’t do cyber space or anything, just comment on a few articles. I’m not into social media either, certainly no FB or Twitter.

                      Of course it is flesh-and-blood human beings. Why the spontaneous responses from so many Disqus owners?

                      You should have read his comments. I felt threatened, like I mentioned. I knew he couldn’t touch me because of the computer screens, but I also knew he was a real person and his intentions towards me were less than honourable. You have to be very careful what you put up on the Internet, no kidding!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      I just read that link … “chaos” … is that his aka. He should have stopped flirting when you asked! I don’t know why he got upset when you asked, it’s your cyber-right. I flirt on here. But I would immediately STOP without hesitation if any of the personalities ask me to … and I never know who is who or what gender or sexuality wise … other than maybe DG … when she asked me whether I like men, LOL. That inquiry made me think … I hope my flirting and affirmations aren’t being interpreted as solicitations and just told DG nope and move on. I mean if I wanted to be with someone offline, I’d just ask them to call or Skype, not do a public whatever folks do online … it’s all new to me, as I love offline reality .. and only do this online thing cuz I’m a procrastinator big time, lol.

                    • Crystal

                      That’s because you’re genuine and respectful.

                      I knew we’d have a lot in common once we got past the rough stage :)

                      I don’t feel threatened at all, nor do I sense you are flirting with me. You are talking to me like a person and that’s great!

                      BTW, I couldn’t flirt to save my life.

                      Do you mind if I gently encourage you to *stop* being a procrastinator? It is a hurtful habit, I know from sad experience :(

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Yes, I 100% agree procrastination is not healthy. I have so many projects I’m behind in getting done by the end of year … yes by Dec 31st … and if not done will cost me $115K … a lot of money, lol. So, yes, I’m so like gonna use your positive coaching to do less online escapism and more real world To Do List, lol. My partner came over today and just looked at me and laughed … “You blogging again sweetie … you know how addicted you get … and then hate yourself later for being late on your projects” … lol. She knows me well … I’d be quite undisciplined if she didn’t tough-love critique me when she visits. So speaking of such, I’m gonna get offline now, as my TDL starts at 10am, lol.

                    • Crystal

                      Thank you for affirming my desire to be treated with respect. That shows one mark of a man of character in my book.

                    • Crystal

                      Hey, I’m aware you’re not trying to brown-nose me, LOL. You were – and still are – pretty frank with me about where we disagree, I think. No brown-nosing there!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Cool! And, yes, we disagree. But that in no way preempts my not being able to respect, value, and love you … just never EVER fantasizing about procreating with you:)

                    • Crystal

                      I value, respect, and love you too, first and foremost as a person. Also, as someone who has taught me a lot, and I deeply appreciate our conversations and the insight you have brought into them :)

                      I don’t think the agreement we have is perfunctory now, but rather sincere.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      LOL .. you recall that cheeky remark I made … you’re sharp! Please don’t be offended. But your wit, charm, smartness, diplomacy, and style online reminds me of another personality on Disgus I love mucho mucho … Doctor Eleven … “DE” for me. I’m cloning YOU … everyone is unique. It’s just your “spirit” seems similar. Please forgive me if this offends you. You deserve you own props.

                    • Crystal

                      No offence, hahahaha! I love a good laugh – just as long as I get the gist of what I’m laughing about :)

                      Aww, you’re really laying it on thick; that’s so sweet, thank you!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Nope. You’re sharp! You got me to talk to you, even post on your website, to even LOVE you more, in spite of our disagreement and my tough-love critique of you in my first post, to where I was 100% willing to get banned … and you knew this. Yet you persisted … and that has me intellectually curious! I love female LEADERS!

                    • Crystal

                      I thank you.

                      Honestly, I never thought of myself as a leader! In real life I am rather meek and compliant I’m afraid. But I know there’s a tiger inside waiting to be unleashed if she’s given the opportunity :)

                      I do not know how I managed to win you over like that. Can you tell me how I did it, if you wouldn’t mind?

                      I persisted because I like people, and I think of what we can agree on far more than on what we disagree on. Finding common ground, especially on such a tough issue as abortion or anything else equally as controversial, is important to me because at that point we’re viewing each other as enemies and we need to forget that we disagree and see each other’s humanity.

                      Please, make Love Joy Feminism a new home if you feel comfortable with that. Also, check out Friendly Atheist. I post there a lot sometimes and I would love to run into you again because you are a very sharp, bright, intelligent man yourself. Yes, men are right on the ball! A female leader has to recognise that rather than pandering to the idea that men are dumb and women are smart, because that’s nonsense.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “In real life I am rather meek and compliant I’m afraid. ”

                      This I would find unbelievable offline. YOU just talk, write, and personal like a LEADER. Maybe I’m projecting. But I doubt it! i wouldn’t be talking to you right now if you didn’t exude this quality online. I’m just not that online friendly or needy for chit-chat. But my achilles heel is leadership … especially constructive, passionate, open-minded leadership, as life can be complex and contentious … and that requires savvy astute tough-love but also diplomacy skills, as most folks don’t always agree … indeed tend to hate each other.

                      As for how you motivated me to “LISTEN” … all you say … you already know yourself Crystal … “I persisted because …. ” … that’s it … being authentic in the face of opposition … where I have never EVER been open to chatting beyond “positions” with any PL … this I was being honest with you about … yet you got me to listen and write on your blogs … something I rarely do with political opposites … not even family members, lol. So whatever you got, it worked … just don’t assume that will happen with most or all.

                      Now I have to go, as I’ve procrastinate BIG TIME … I’ve got a ton of chores to do before bed time and it’s 2AM here … where I must be up no later than 10 am for appointments.

                      Thanks again C for sharing your websites. And, yes, I’ll visit, read many of the posts, and maybe migrate there and post less here or do both … although my schedule is getting even more hectic and my trying to post mobile on my Note 4 can be problematic as my browser isn’t as fast as my laptop. Enjoy moderating and hosting all your guests tonight.

                      I want to leave you with a one of my favorite statistical links … I know you’ll figure out why I shared it without you having to ask me the next time I’m online although you may:)

                      https://www.census.gov/popclock/world

                    • Crystal

                      Thank you so much for talking and listening to me. I’m aware we didn’t exactly like each other at first but once we got past the initial animosity we hit it off just fine, like I suspected, and a part of me wonders if you thought the same.

                      I have to go too; I’ve got RL (real life) to live. I appreciate the fact you want to check out those places and I hope to see you again soon so we can discuss loads of topics more – feminism, PL, racism, etc.

                      You have taught me a great deal today. I hope we can respectfully find common ground where we can, and disagree with compassion when we must. You’ve made me think a lot of noble thoughts about my sex and appreciate good men who support women all the more. If ever I get the right man I want someone who highly appreciates female leadership so thank you for bringing that to my attention.

                      I agree with and feel deeply inspired by your desire to see women lead. I also think that men are intelligent and strong, and make brilliant leaders as well; that doesn’t mean I’m seeking to willfully misunderstand your beliefs about women’s intelligence and leadership qualities; quite the contrary. I was raised traditional so I appreciate these good qualities in males, and there’s a reason men and women should lead together – they need each other.

                      I will check out your link.

                      Time for bed for me too, sorry :*(

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “a part of me wonders if you thought the same”

                      I never hated you Crystal in spite of our political values. I LOVED you upfront because you wrote me with style, charm, smartness … leadership! Please don’t underestimate how savvy and leadership awesome you are … I rarely rarely do what we’re doing C … so you’ve got the magic … okay, silly word … “authentic love spirit” … which resonates with my favorite saying to all those I cherish: “Life Is Precious! Love Is Priceless! … anyone in my inner circle knows I live by these words daily … and only extend them to those whom I find extraordinary!

                      NIght C … or should I say … Good Morning, lol:)

                    • Crystal

                      I thank you, yet again. I am deeply touched by your opening your heart to me like this! I cannot help but respond back with respect, appreciation, and love.

                      I’m sorry I was a little mad at you at the very beginning, but I’m glad I restrained myself and tried to understand where you were coming from, and no I didn’t hate you either even then, and certainly don’t now!

                      Thank you so very much for encouraging me to be a leader; and to think of myself as that; and for noticing, remarking on, and praising those qualities. I have never really been told I have the capacity to be a leader (except for once or at the most twice), only the capacity to be LED, partially because of my nature and partially because I am, in the eyes of others, a sweet young woman. I will try not to underestimate myself!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “there’s a reason men and women should lead together – they need each other.”

                      And now you know 100% why I was 100% correct about how sharp you are and a superb LEADER … it’s not a binary males vs females or vice versa … it’s humans loving humans:)

                      You’re awesome Crystal … please don’t let anyone (especially males … lol) tell you otherwise.

                    • Crystal

                      “And now you know 100% why I was 100% correct about how sharp you are and
                      a superb LEADER … it’s not a binary males vs females or vice versa
                      … it’s humans loving humans:)”

                      God, I agree 100%!

                      Personally, as I’ve stated before, I find men to be magnificent, strong, bright, brave leaders IF they are doing what is right and good and treating others with respect as well. Men have the inherent capacity to do so much good and to be so incredibly intelligent, but they have to earn respect through character and are not entitled to it simply because they are *men*. If a man is good and trustworthy, stern yet gentle, wise yet open-minded, etc, I will trust and respect that man. But he has to prove himself to be good first, before I can even consider pledging my trust so completely. Please don’t ever underestimate your intelligence and leadership skills, nor talk yourself down to put others up either, just because you happen to be a man.

                      To me, what is needed is not only to value the leadership of your own sex but also to value the leadership of the opposite sex – I mark a note that this is a great failing in society, that everyone brags about how great their sex is while putting the opposite sex down, or praises the opposite sex while downplaying the positive contributions of their own. This statement is not a criticism of either of us but rather an affirmation that our society seriously needs to change in this area, and, as we agreed so capitally, that men and women need to lead *together* rather than fighting each other all the time.

                      As a leader, then, *plus* as a supporter, I support your decision to get off this forum and do what you must do. Many cheers go with you for the wonderful day you gave me, and I hope I made you happy too!

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “I made you happy too!”

                      1 trillion billion to the trillion billion power percent my co-leader! Night:)

                    • Crystal

                      Wow, that’s awesome!

                      Night :)

                      I wish your partner well, if that’s all right. Because she sounds like a very smart woman from what you tell me :)

                      PS: Thanks for calling me a co-leader! Because one mark of a man of character is to recognise women as co-leaders :)

                    • Crystal

                      Thank you; you’re an awesome, intelligent, and wise leader too :)

                    • Crystal

                      “please don’t let anyone (especially males … lol) tell you otherwise”

                      As I battle misogyny in my soul and in my body and in my environment, I *will* remember your words – guaranteed!

                    • Crystal
                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Excellent articles … quite excellent! The statutory rape one I find most outstanding because it compels us (at least me) to introspect about many dynamics …

                      1. Ageism … how does this taken-for-granted ISM influence age of consent beyond other ISMs?

                      2. Consent … what does “consent” really mean within the context of “hegemony” … free-will, complicity, duplicity, socialization, indoctrination?

                      3. Heterosexims … how does “rape” get defined specific to diverse identities/sexualities … can a lesbian rape a bisexual or lesbian teen or female if “penis-penetration” isn’t involved …. only oral sex … is gay male sex RAPE comparable to straight-rape?

                      Historical Example:

                      Could there be free-will-consent between a Master and Female Slave (or Male Slave) … even if either or both consented … were not beaten or threaten … but need sexual gratification, wanted more favorable treatment, or fell in love with a less malevolent Master …. given the power-relationship … inequality … between Human Property Owners and Human Property?

                      I also like that the author didn’t focus technicality wise on AOC laws and noted how “problematic” those laws can be as it relates to consent and rape … as my superficial study of AOC shows the primary reasons for states setting disparate AOC laws was due to child support, the State wanting to reduce it’s welfare payments to father-less teens … not any science about what constitutes “maturity” or historical/contemporary studies in the pro and con outcomes of different “age-gap-sex” … especially in a culture that permits same-age sex … teens having sex with teens and adults having sex with adults … but then the inter-generational-issue being taboo … why?

                      “Note: Ultimately, what makes statutory rape rape is the inability of a child to give meaningful consent. After all, rape pivots on lack of consent, not use of force. The age of consent varies from state to state, but the goal is to determine at what age a child is old enough to give meaningful consent do sex. My goal in this article was to point out that, at the very least, a media source has no excuse to write of an adult “having sex with” a child below the age of consent, because such is legally considered rape regardless of other factors. However, I do want to be clear that it is the child’s inability to provide meaningful consent, and not the specific legal age set in a given state, that makes rape rape in situations like those described in this post. ”

                      See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html#sthash.2tKnr5jK.dpuf

                      Gayle Rubin speaks about this age-gap-issue and I sense from many reviews in a provocative way … inter-generational-sex … ouch … in her 1984 Thinking Sex … article. I guess that’s why it’s so often cited as a pro-sex “radical” feminist piece back then and today.

                    • Crystal

                      I hope you don’t mind if I copy your comment to the article on rape itself. Your thoughts are that good. I will respond to this comment at that article commenting section as well.

                    • Crystal

                      I agree that women have the powerful skills for leadership and have been severely put down by men as well.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Then I hope you won’t be complicit and duplicit in perpetuating this non-sense via your Pro Life values/ideologyreligion … as religion is insidious in keeping women subordinate (inferior) and males Patriarchs (superior) … worldwide. I also hope you’re not one of these superpower nation privileged females whom takes her comfortable Male-Appendage-Reality for granted … compared to the horrors females in highly religious and sexist cultures have to suffer … stoned to death, raped with impunity, sold as teen and adult property-wives … prohibited from even riding a bike or driving a car … yikes!

                    • Crystal

                      I’m not religious. Being prolife, for me, has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with standing for life-preserving morality.

                      Also, I mentioned that I have no wish to suppress anyone. That being said, I am seeking a solution to this problem before us that will grant both pregnant persons their right to bodily autonomy and unborn persons their right to live, via technology and many other methods. I seek to care for and consider both because both are equally important, and it’s time prolifers recognised that. That being said, my ideas of caring for both pregnant and unborn persons will not please everyone, and I recognise that as well.

                      I appreciate your contributions to this forum and I have found you to be respectful and considerate. Thank you. However, as a woman I appreciate men and their intelligence a lot too. I think men and women need to rule *together*, not one over the other.

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                “I am sure that you have a lot to contribute provided you read the commenting policy and observe it properly.”

                Are you kidding me? I have no desire whatsoever to validate, affirm, or debate you about Pro-Life … so now ask the mods to ban me! I would consider such a ban an HONOR!

                • Crystal

                  They will have to make that decision themselves.

                • Obliged.

          • Shifty

            TL:DR

        • lady_black

          No, they are not.

        • “Unborn persons are slaves to their parents.”

          Wait, what?

          • Crystal

            When people don’t acknowledge your personhood legally, and they have the absolute right to kill you for whatever reason, then yes you are their slave. You’re at their mercy, at their power, and there isn’t a thing you can do about it unless someone speaks up for you.

      • IrrationalHumanBeing

        Wow!

        Yes, our individual and collective actions have consequences. But YOU and the Pro Life Movement don’t get to dictate what those consequences will or won’t be … meaning “she should take responsibility for the baby that she, through her (and the males” actions. That’s what abortions do … solve the problem of UNWANTED pregnancies … and all of the poverty circumstances that follow such … unless YOU think wealthy females can’t get abortions.

        You’re actions also have consequences, such as trying to prevent or circumvent Roe v Wade, especially if you’re MALE:)

        • Crystal

          Could you please explain how and why abortion solves poverty issues, from your perspective?

          • IrrationalHumanBeing

            Sure!

            Count how many poor people there are in America and world wide. Abort all those humans. You just ended up with less poverty … because there will always be irrational human procreating even though they cannot afford to raise their progeny middle class or wealthy class.

            Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel! Demanding The State force females to carry a zygote to term, give it up for foster care or adoption, or to raise it under poverty conditions … especially if those females were raped including invest … is EVIL.

            Second only to the evil conduct of Hate-Groups … The Pro Life Movement is the second most EVIL value system, religious belief, and political movement on the planet. Like Hate-Groups, The Pro Life Movement should be legally and politically classified A Domestic Terrorist Group and all of it’s members and sympathizers treated like such.

            • Crystal

              Thanks for responding back.

              “Bringing a child or children into poverty conditions is cruel!”

              I agree that it is cruel. Which is why I advocate for fighting poverty, one of the root causes of abortion.

              May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                “May I ask what led you to advocate for abortion to remain legal?”

                I don’t advocate for Roe v Wade to never be revoked! I advocate that 162 million American Females … 4.4 billion Females Worldwide should be the only … and I emphasize ONLY voices that decide this complex political issue as they are impact by any political outcome in ways 152 million American Males … 3.0 billion Male PATRIARCHS worldwide will never EVER experience. It’s unfathomable that MALES (including myself) have any decision-making power in this FEMALE-ONLY-ISSUE. That is my agnostic poltiks on this issue. If a majority or minority of women decide ALL FEMALES MUST PROCREATE or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc … or raise their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death … then let that be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES … never EVER male patriarchs:)

                • Crystal

                  “If a majority or minority of women decide ALL FEMALES MUST PROCREATE
                  or be defined as evil, immoral, criminals, murders, etc … or raise
                  their kids in poverty, crime, eventual prison or death … then let that
                  be the political-decision of ALL FEMALES … never EVER male
                  patriarchs:)”

                  Agreed 100%, because conservative Christian men who preach abstinence aren’t helping IMO.

                  One question to ask though – do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?

                  • IrrationalHumanBeing

                    “One question to ask though – do you personally believe it is your prerogative to step in when you see something unjust being perpetrated, even if that injustice does not personally affect you?”

                    1. Not based on religion … NEVER. Religion is a personal faith in an Invisible Being. I cannot fathom making complex political decisions based on a faith in an Invisible Being … some delusion I’m the representative, messenger, and wrath of an Invisible Being. That kind of irrationality has been used by our primitive species (past and present) to justify atrocities, in spite of any religious liberation movements. If humans cannot evolve beyond “mysticism” when it comes to complex realities, then we merit extinction … not religious culture wars.

                    2. Situationally, yes! It depends on whether I want to risk or sacrifice my life for intervening into a situation … be it serving in the military for my nation’s wars, to being involved in some civilian political cause. Where I make an exception is when it comes to this abortion-/pro-choice issue. I’ve studied it. I’ve asked all women I’ve ever met about it. I’ve looked at from all the different major pro and con arguments. And every time this complex issue comes back to … the females body/mind … as males don’t have a womb. No matter how I view this debate, I cannot EVER ignore the reality that this zygote, reality of procreation, will take place inside a female human being … teen or adult … never male.

                    3. Absolute Pro-Life is irrational … a neat political bumper sticker, neat symbolic propaganda. But it’s a LIE. 7.4 billion humans are not 100% Pro-Life … never have been, never will be. ALL humans … ALL OF US … are situationally pro-life/pro-death … depending on the circumstances and our self-serving rationales. I loath that the Pro-Lifers want to obtain State Power to coerce, force, use violence … to control the body/mind/womb of ALL FEMALES … and justify this based primarily on their religious beliefs … even though they know 7.4 billion humans aren’t all religious, don’t all share the same religious faiths, as if their religious/secular belief is some divine message/will of an Invisible God. It’s INSANE! The Pro-Life Movement spend millions of labor hours, millions of dollars, myopically focusing on the female body … trying to circumvent pro-choice laws … but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body … and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it unfathomable to bring a child into this world … poverty, war, disease, bigotry. It’s like the Pro Life Movement just ignores these ugly harsh sober realities … for a 1-10 months period … only long enough for every female to pop out a baby … but then after … that female and baby are on their own … no more Pro-Life.

                    • Crystal

                      Thank you for explaining your reasons.

                      “but rarely on the technology to procreate outside the female body …
                      and rarely on the systemic and institutional conditions that make it
                      unfathomable to bring a child into this world … poverty, war, disease,
                      bigotry.”

                      On this, we agree.

                      I do have a question though: if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “if you saw a woman trying to drown her toddler due to depression and anxiety on her part, would you step in to stop the drowning taking place, or not?”

                      Three answers:

                      1. If that “toddler” was a “zygote” … NO, that decision will always be hers:)

                      2. If a human being outside her womb … maybe … depends on whether she has a hand gun or assault rifle … then I probably am not gonna risk my life for that child unless it was YOURS … cuz I love you … cyber wise … so then I’d be like 7.4 billion humans … cherry-pick which lives I ascribe more value and which I don’t … which is why humans aren’t absolute pro-life but pro-life/pro-death depending on the circumstances/situation vis-a-vis their values and skills.

                      3. Abortion can never EVER be compared to a DSM 5 medical condition UNLESS The Pro Life Movement and any human whom is religious and believes in an Invisible Being also wants human society to view, define, and treat them like a DSM 5 delusional person:)

                    • Crystal

                      “1. If that “toddler” was a “zygote” … NO, that decision will always be hers:)”

                      I can understand that.

                      I wonder though – didn’t we start from a small beginning? Also, if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences?

                      Also, in regards to bodily autonomy – which type do you believe in, and I quote:

                      “The Right to Refuse Argument states that even if the unborn is a
                      human being, a woman has the right to refuse to allow the unborn the use
                      of her body.”

                      “The Sovereign Zone Argument states that even if the
                      unborn is a human being, a woman should still be able to have an
                      abortion because she has the right to do anything she wants with
                      anything inside the sovereign zone of her body.”

                      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone-why-its-my-body-i-can-do-what-i-want-wont-do/

                      2. At least you are consistent with your view. You are correct to observe that humans generally don’t step out of line to save the lives of others unless they feel up to the challenge. The Hunger Games illustrates that quite well.

                      3. What’s a DSM 5 medical condition?

                      PS: “cuz I love you … cyber wise …” Thanks for the compliment, returned, cyberwise :)

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “if the zygote has less worth than the toddler due to developmental differences, would the toddler have less worth than a teen due to such differences?”

                      My answer … since I will never ever have a zygote inside me then I as a male (patriarch) defer this “personhood” issue to ALL females:)

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “in regards to bodily autonomy – which type do you believe in”

                      My answer — three types of autonomy:

                      1. Male — we should stop owning/controlling human society, share the power, defer to wiser smarter less aggressive humans.

                      2. Female — they should step up to the plate, when and if they can given their circumstances, and start being the leaders and stewards of human society, demand and if necessary go to war for absolute control over their body/reproductive capacities UNTIL procreation takes place outside the female body … renounce all internalized, false-consciousness, religious babble, sexism that allows most males to control their minds/bodies via patriarchy cultural hegemony.

                      3. Never EVER do I submit nor will I obey … capitulate or turn over control of my mind/body to an Invisible Being based on faith. If such a Being exist, then he/she/it has to represent and speak for their self … not self-appointed primates (humans) pretending they’re the representative, messenger, and wrath of the IB.

                    • Crystal

                      1. I agree that men need to share their power.

                      2. “UNTIL procreation takes place outside the female body” – do you think technology will ever make it possible for the procreated person to be moved to another location, after it was created inside the female body, to finish development before birth, without killing it?

                      I do agree that women need to step up to the plate and take charge of their lives though. The only difference between you and me is that I don’t believe that abortion is the best way to make that happen. Also the only difference between me and the mainstream PL movement is that I don’t believe traditional views on female sexuality or even the status of unborn persons are the best way to make that happen either.

                      3. Fair enough.

            • I have a hard time imagining that I would be able to find common ground and have a productive dialogue with somebody who thinks I ought to be classified as a “domestic terrorist.”

              • Crystal

                Hi, you just talked to my abuser:

                http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html

                Scroll down the Newest button on that article and look at what he did to me. He screwed with my *mind*, Josh.

                Then he tried pulling this same cr*p on me on this page:

                blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/donald-trump-is-disaster-waiting-to.html

                If it hadn’t been for two very good friends going to bat for me I would have been emotionally devastated. I’ve taken your advice; we haven’t exchanged *a word* since that incident.

                Also, even before that, he was making inappropriate comments to me on YOUR website, saying things like “I wouldn’t want to procreate with you” and casting doubt on some of my words. How would you react if I told you I didn’t want to procreate with you?

                You’re lucky he didn’t try screwing with your mind the way he did with me, and I think he did it because I am PL.

        • Wild_Bird

          “That’s what abortions do … solve the problem of UNWANTED pregnancies . . .”
          If a woman does not want the “problem” of an unwanted pregnancy, then she should take responsibility BEFOREHAND.
          If she fails to do that, the unborn baby’s inalienable right to life should be protected.
          Once the baby’s most fundamental human right has been protected and the baby has been born, the mother is free to put that child up for adoption.
          Interestingly, your most fundamental human right, the right to be born, was respected yet you would callously deny that same right to others.
          Have you no shame?

          • Crystal

            Abortion kills human life. That’s why it’s bad.

            • You may want to say a more nuanced version of this. There are obviously cases where killing human life is not wrong, like self-defense. I think you mean something like, “abortion kills a valuable person without good justification.”

              • Crystal

                In a way I get your point, but what if they fire back at you, “But there is good justification, it’s self-defence etc”?

          • Do you believe that adding the “have you no shame” question is helpful to creating an environment for open and productive dialogue?

            • Wild_Bird

              I believe you’re an @sshole.

            • Crystal

              I mean this respectfully – sometimes it *is* necessary.

              However if you’re wanting to discuss the matter civilly and hopefully persuade people to your views then it’s not the best course.

      • lady_black

        There is no “baby.” Babies are delivered or already born. And having an abortion IS taking responsibility. You just don’t care for the method.

        • Wild_Bird

          Wrong. Abortion stops a beating heart. An unborn baby.
          Try again.

          • Crystal

            This is why I call them “unborn persons”; so that we don’t fight over the terminology yet I am strongly acknowledging their personhood. I created the term myself, off “pregnant persons.”

            That aside, I agree with your comment. Abortion does stop a beating heart and that is why I am so dead set against it. I doubt anything will change my mind on the issue.

            • Wild_Bird

              Many of these pro-aborts are staunch progressives, who like to claim the moral high ground when it comes to being inclusive.
              Yet when the rubber meets the road, they are extremely exclusive when it comes to recognizing the humanity of unborn persons.
              To me that demonstrates their rank hypocrisy.

              • Crystal

                Exactly so.

                As you yourself said, no right matters once your right to live is gone. I have tried and tried explaining this repeatedly but sometimes with little success.

                Do you think it is accusing advocates of legal abortion of ethnic cleansing to assert such a thing? Because I don’t. To me, it’s just stating a moral principle.

                Ironically I would consider myself a progressive person (in some ways). Yet I can see this sort of act runs afoul of all progressive values. We fight against ageism, for disability rights, yet we include abortion, euthanasia. Something’s gotta give somewhere.

                • Wild_Bird

                  There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they’re a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party that treats taxpayer funded abortion on demand for any reason throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy as the highest sacrament in the progressive/liberal religion. That’s right, I said religion.

                  • Shifty

                    You are a lily livered liar.

                    • Crystal

                      Shifty, that kind of speech could get you banned.

                  • Crystal

                    Why do you call it a religion? To me, it’s more like a philosophical affiliation. There are different types – Marxists, SJWs (social justice warriors), more questioning liberals, etc.

                  • Jim H

                    “There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they’re a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party…”
                    That statement seems ideological rather than factual:

                    According to Gallup, in 2012, following are the percentage, in descending order, of people who identify as pro life in each party:

                    Republicans – 72%

                    Independent – 47%

                    Democrats – 34%

                    The percentage of US adults who identified as pro-life was 50%

                    http(colon)//www(dot)gallup(dot)com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low(dot)aspx

                    To put that 34% in perspective — 70% of the US population is Christian, Evangelicals are 25% of the US population, that means Evangelicals are 36% of all Christians in the US.

                    Would you consider Evangelicals a tiny minority of Christians?

                    • Wild_Bird

                      Even if the poll you cite is accurate as to the percentage of supposedly pro-life Democrats, only a tiny minority of Democrats who hold elective office are pro-life.

                      Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology.

                    • Jim H

                      “Even if the poll you cite is accurate as to the percentage of supposedly pro-life Democrats, only a tiny minority of Democrats who hold elective office are pro-life.”

                      What you said was: “There are a few pro-life Democrats, but they’re a tiny minority within an overwhelmingly pro-abortion party…”

                      I provided data, to show that was not true. I do not intend to play move the goalposts with you. If you do, please do likewise, and provide some data to support your contention.

                      “Again, unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand is the highest sacrament in liberal/progressive theology.”

                      Again, purely ideological, in no way factual, and totally unimpressive intellectually. The fact that you repeat it just makes you look even less impressive.

                      However, I did find some factual information about liberal and progressive theology. I have provided it below. However, no where does it mention “unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand” as a sacrament, much less their highest one:

                      Liberal theology, covers diverse philosophically and biblically informed religious movements and ideas within Christianity from the late 18th century onward. Liberal does not refer to Progressive Christianity or to a political philosophy but to the philosophical and religious thought that developed as a consequence of the Enlightenment.

                      Progressive theology was much harder tp pin down, but I eventually found something from a Methodist church in the Midwest. In their promotion materials about who they are, they claim progressive theology as one of their unique identifiers. Below is a direct quote from their materials:

                      8 Points of Progressive Theology: by calling ourselves progressive we mean we are Christians who…

                      find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty–more value in questioning than absolutes

                      form ourselves into communities dedicated to equipping another for the work we feel called to do; striving for justice among all people, protecting and restoring the integrity of all God’s creation, and bringing hope to those Jesus called the least of brothers and sisters

                      invite all people to participate in our community and worship life without insisting that they become like us in order to be acceptable

                      recognize the faithfulness of other people who have other names for the way to God’s realm, and acknowledge that their ways are true for them, as our ways are true for us.

                      have found an approach to God through the life and teachings of Jesus.

                      understand the sharing of bread and wine in the name of Jesus’s name to be a representation of an ancient version of God’s feast for all peoples

                      know that the way we behave toward one another is the fullest expression of what we believe

                      recognize that being followers of Jesus is costly, and entails selfless love, conscientious resistance to evil, and renunciation of privilege

                    • Wild_Bird

                      Basically, you’re a collectivist who believes in liberation theology — i.e. Marxism..

                    • Crystal

                      How do you *know* that?

                      If Jim H is Marxist won’t he call himself that? From what I read of him, he hasn’t made a decision on life issues either way but rather is very open-minded on the topic.

                    • Wild_Bird

                      Why aren’t you registered with Disqus?
                      Why do you only comment as a guest?
                      What are you hiding?

                    • Crystal

                      Nothing!

                      My circumstances, at present, unfortunately do NOT permit me to get a Disqus registration or I would happily do so. It’s a privacy measure.

                      Also, I am not a troll. I realise a few people have abused the guest commenting facility but I would rather give thoughtful, rational reasons for what I believe than troll people.

                    • Wild_Bird

                      “Wrong. Abortion stops a beating heart. An unborn baby.
                      Try again.”

                      The above prior comment of mine was removed. Josh Brahm and his blog is pathetic.
                      Last you’ll be hearing from me on this thread.

                    • Crystal

                      I am in agreement with you that that comment should NOT have been removed, because it’s the confounded truth, and we can’t deny it to pander to sad feelies.

                    • As far as I can tell, you are incorrect. That comment is still there, and I just saw it and responded to it today.

                    • Jim H

                      No, liberal/progressive theology was your term. I merely explained that the terms you were using actually had meanings that were nothing like what you characterize them as.

                      I don’t “believe” in theology at all. However, I do find it interesting from an academic/intellectual standpoint and have read a considerable amount about it.

                      Why would you assume that the fact that I know something about a subject makes a statement regarding my relationship to it?

                      For example, you likely understand the digestive system. Can I assume that makes you a turd?

                    • Crystal

                      Jim, please don’t go down that insults road. It’s not good for the commenting section and the moderators have strong feelings about slinging mud.

                    • Jim H

                      It was meant to be a humorous analogy, not an insult. I like the fact that mudslinging is discouraged, but not hypersensitivity that would consider something like that mudslinging and/or offensive. However, I appreciate your concern.

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks for understanding and explaining *why* you said it. I think your contributions are good so I do not want to see you get banned or have your comments deleted. You sound like a real thinker.

                    • Jim H

                      Thank you for the kind words.

                    • Crystal

                      That’s okay. Roll on, Jim.

                      Two rules I follow:

                      1) Don’t treat others badly
                      2) Don’t let the bad treatment of others get you down

                    • Jim H

                      Good advice.

                    • Jim wouldn’t be banned for that, because he wasn’t slinging mud. He was making an analogy. It perhaps could have been made a little clearly and more effectively, but his intent is obvious.

                    • Crystal

                      Well, no, because they run the show a lot in conservative Christian culture. Although they’re not the only ones.

                    • Jim H

                      That was meant to be rhetorical.

                    • Crystal

                      I see.

          • Shifty

            Bleeding heart hypocrite.

            • Crystal

              Shifty, please don’t call names. A lot of your comments have been deleted for this. I would, however, appreciate having convos with you at the place I mentioned – SPL.

              For instance, what do you think of this article:

              http://blog.secularprolife.org/2015/12/what-creates-babies-sex-or-choices.html

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                I posted my male opinion on the blog article you reference: “What creates babies: sex, or choices? It made me uncomfortable … for again my politiks is … only-females (NOT MALES) should workout this complex public policy and very personal issue. I won’t lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image didn’t resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons … including why “WHITE” still the default “universality” for “human representation” … comparable to “he … his … him … HIS-story” … and yada yada venting, LOL. I probably would have preferred a picture of E.T. with an E.T. baby or anything WHITE symbolizing universal cultural hegemony … yikes!

                • Crystal

                  Thanks for expressing your opinion on the article. I can understand your discomfort. I recognise that you want to be respectful to my sex by not bossing our bodies around and, while I disagree with your position on the abortion issue, I can appreciate the actual thought of wanting to respect female decisions.

                  “I won’t lie, the symbolize 50s looking white female with her baby image
                  didn’t resonate with me, for all kinds of cultural reasons … including
                  why “WHITE” still the default “universality” for “human representation”

                  I share your deploring of white being the default state. I am white myself, yet in a way racism bothers me a lot more than sexism. White is not necessarily delightsome, the Book of Mormon be screwed. We need more non-white representations of models, protagonists in stories, etc. The white privilege – I find it bothersome.

                  • IrrationalHumanBeing

                    Now we’re in agreement … even if perfunctory, lol:) I’m going to ask two very personal questions Crystal … and please don’t be offended, as they enter my mind whenever I see this abortion debate. Please don’t answer if it’s too personal or offensive:

                    1. Do you live in an underdeveloped or developing nation or in the middle east or western nation?

                    2. Have you ever been raped as a teen or adult … to include incest … and did a pregnancy result?

                    • Crystal

                      I’m a Westerner. I have never been raped or abused by incest. However, I have read and have had the privilege of knowing people who have been raped, so their pain resonates with me. Also I am tokophobic, meaning I struggle with fearing pain and downsides in childbirth. I have also struggled with mental illness, meaning I am unprepared to have children. I’m definitely not trying to speak from a place of privilege. The only reason I believe abortion is wrong is that it takes an innocent human life. That’s it. If it didn’t do that I wouldn’t be dead set against it.

              • Shifty

                I’ll give it a look see.

          • lady_black

            The only heartbeat that’s relevant is that of the woman. Without that, there will be no ‘beating heart.’

            • Crystal

              That’s true, initially. However, AFAIK the baby’s/embryo’s heartbeat starts at six weeks after conception.

              http://www.newhealthguide.org/When-Does-A-Baby-Have-A-Heartbeat.html

              http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

              • lady_black

                And there would be no beating heart without the beating heart of the mother, regardless of when it starts to beat.
                Cardiac cells will beat in a petri dish with electrical stimulation. If there are a group of them, they beat in unison, because that’s what they do. No one is obligated to preserve beating cardiac cells, regardless of location.

                • Crystal

                  Do you believe that an embryo is a group of beating cardiac cells then? I’m not trying to be dumb here, just wondering exactly what you do believe about the composition of the ZEF.

                  • lady_black

                    Until it’s able to live outside someone else’s body? Pretty much. I think differently about viable fetuses. They’re still not entitled to a uterus, but if there’s a threat to the mother’s health, they can be delivered.
                    In fact, it’s a delivery after 20 weeks, even if the fetus won’t make it. Which brings up another misconception about “abortion.” “The day before delivery”, “the month before delivery”, “8 1/2 months” or any other false situations anyone might lay out, abortion is not EVEN possible. At that point, it’s a delivery, even of a dead fetus. NOT an abortion.

                    • Crystal

                      Well, thank you for sharing what you believe. I can understand where you’re coming from a little better now. Personally if a baby is *dead* and would be stillborn in the natural, I am not against the abortion procedure being used at that point.

                    • lady_black

                      That is not “an abortion procedure” at all. It’s a delivery 100% of the time, regardless of the life-status of the fetus. You must realize that a fetus over a certain size cannot be suctioned out with a cannula, removed in pieces in a D&E, nor can it be teleported to outside the uterus. Thus delivery is the only option.

                    • Jim H

                      I was wondering what happened to you. Did you reply to my comments and I missed it, or did you choose to not reply. If you chose not to reply, can I assume you agree with what I said?

                      I proved my claim by providing a source from a medical journal. Since you currently claiming that the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion, could you please do likewise and provide a similar type of medical source supporting that claim?

                    • lady_black

                      No you can’t assume anything. What was your comment?

                    • Jim H

                      Before I address my previous comment, I would ask if you are going to address this one?

                      Regarding the medical source I provided supporting my claim, it was in response to:

                      “Wrong. And NO “the majority of doctors” do NOT go with “conception. I’M not even sure ANY of them do. .”
                      The actual data showed that twice as many doctors go with conception as implantation.
                      That was part of a reply I made to you 2 days ago. Here it is in its entirety.

                      “An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy. He doesn’t lose bodily autonomy. In particular, a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy.”

                      You are simple playing word games. But, that’s fine lets look at it semantically: i.e., based on the meanings of the words:

                      Autonomy is simply an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance. Bodily simply means of or concerning the body.

                      Bodily autonomy is therefore simply an individual’s ability (synonym for capacity) to determination or govern their own body.

                      You admit that “An incarcerated person loses freedom of movement, which is a type of autonomy.” So I would ask they lose the freedom of movement of what? The only logical response is their body, of course.

                      So, based on semantics; i.e., the meanings of the words involved, it is simply incorrect to say he doesn’t lose bodily autonomy.

                      Conceptually, bodily autonomy is not limited to the reproductive aspect of the body. So, the fact that “a female convict is not forced to carry a pregnancy” may be true, it does nothing to negate the fact that controlling a convicts freedom of movement also results in a loss of their bodily autonomy.

                      “Wrong. And NO “the majority of doctors” do NOT go with “conception. I’M not even sure ANY of them do. .”

                      You need to read something other than whatever propaganda you have been reading and be better informed, and less dogmatic, with your assertions.

                      Implantation is not the consensus of the OB GYN’s in the country and repeating negatives and using caps does not change that. In fact, implantation is the minority view.

                      A study of “Obstetrician-gynecologists’ beliefs about when pregnancy begins” was published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology — February 2012, Volume 206, Issue 2, Pages 132.e1–132.e7. it stated:

                      One-half of US obstetrician-gynecologists (57%) believe pregnancy begins at conception. Fewer (28%) believe it begins at implantation, and 16% are not sure.

                      “This is simply NO. Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. Rights are not subjected to the whims of others. That would be mob rule. We DO have a Constitution, you know. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority.

                      More repetition and caps. I have pretty well lost hope in a civil intelligent conversation with you, at this point, I’m glad this is almost over.

                      Your original comment was:

                      “People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another.”

                      How do you think rights are determined? For example you mentioned the constitution. Were the men who wrote the constitution not people who believed what they wished to believe, defied a king, and had a huge impact on the rights of a whole lot of “anothers”. The rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority as a direct result of their beliefs.

                      Have you ever read the Federalist Papers. It was a series of papers arguing for the ratification of the United States Constitution. No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison under the pseudonym Publius (under which all of The Federalist Papers were published),

                      Federalist No. 10 is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings. It addresses the question of how to guard against “factions”, or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, united republic would be better able to guard against those dangers than would smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject.

                      So the fact that rights are not subjected to the whims of others and that the rights of everyone are protected from tyranny of the majority are the results of the beliefs of people like Madison which had and do still have considerable impact.

                    • lady_black

                      What is “pregnancy?” It is the state of females while they are carrying an embryo or a fetus. Now with all due respect for those OBs who think otherwise, at fertilization a female isn’t “carrying” anything. There is a free-floating ball of cells that have a far better chance of ending up passing harmlessly out of her body than attaching to her and starting to grow. I would also ask these “doctors” if they consider petri dishes to be “pregnant” since there are embryos in them. Pregnancy is a dance involving two, not merely the presence of an embryo that at this point is doing nothing but floating in space. Therefore, I stick by what I was taught in nursing school.
                      As far as the federalist papers? Those are not law. They can tell us something about what the founding fathers were thinking when they drafted the Constitution, and I agree that the notion of protecting minority rights from the tyranny of the majority originated there. The time of the founding fathers has come and gone, and the Constitution must be interpreted according to life in 2015, not in the late 18th century when it was written. Otherwise, it just isn’t worth much. For example, they thought only white male landowners should vote. In today’s society, such an idea would be laughed out of court.
                      Today we have the 14th amendment that clarifies everything. No state or federal government may deny any person equal protection under the law, and defines exactly who is a citizen. Anyone born inside the United States or naturalized therein. No federalist papers are needed to clarify that. Therefore, the rights of a minority cannot be subjected to the whims of voters.
                      Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave.
                      That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy. A prisoner cannot be drugged or treated medically against his will. He cannot be strapped down and forced to donate blood. He cannot be raped without it being a crime. He cannot be forced to eat. He cannot be forced into medical experimentation. He cannot be forcibly sterilized. And in the case of a female prisoner, she cannot be forced either to abort a pregnancy, nor to carry one to term. THAT is BODILY autonomy. Loss of bodily autonomy is not defined as the loss of freedom of movement. That would more accurately be called a loss of liberty than bodily autonomy. It’s not a semantics game. Words mean what they mean. And even then, prisoners are not deprived of ALL liberty. They cannot, for instance, be forbidden to marry… even on death row.

                    • Jim H

                      First of all, does your silence mean you are not going to provide a medical source supporting that claim that “the termination of a pregnancy by medical or surgical means after a certain stage of the pregnancy is considered a delivery rather than an abortion”?

                      Next, I would point out that your comment that I originally addressed was:

                      “Wrong. And NO “the majority of doctors” do NOT go with “conception. I’M not even sure ANY of them do. .”

                      That was factually incorrect and your lack of research was blatantly apparent. So rather than admit that you were wrong you build a straw man argument instead.

                      But, in doing so, you don’t effectively knock your straw man argument down either. You offer no evidence from a credible source and instead present only your own opinions based on you remember from nursing school. You believe that should overrule the opinions of doctors who specialize and currently practice in that field

                      If you think about it, isn’t the development of pregnancy actually counted from the first day of the woman’s last normal menstrual period (LMP), even though the development of the fetus does not begin until conception, which is about two weeks later, which assumes each menstrual cycle to be her body is preparing for pregnancy.?

                      Aren’t you really just saying pregnancy begins at implantation simply because you prefer that definition because it better serves your argument? I have used that argument too, because I understand how effective IUDs are at preventing pregnancies and thus reduce abortions. But, I was wrong. It is not the consensus of doctors who practice in that field.

                      The next comment I addressed was:

                      “People are free to believe as they wish, but that has zero impact on the rights of another.”

                      That is conceptually about the relationship between beliefs and rights and I addressed it on that basis. The Federalist papers were an example of the selling of a set of beliefs having an impact on the rights of others, in case it was Madison addressing the rights of the individual, which is the issue the raised. I could have used many other examples to illustrate beliefs that found themselves incorporated into the legal system that has a great impact on rights. You completely miss the point by attacking the examples rather than the concept itself.

                      Next you say:

                      “Now as to bodily autonomy. What type of autonomy is denied to prisoners? The autonomy that you and I enjoy to be located wherever we wish to be. They cannot leave.
                      That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy.”

                      Semantics is the study of words and their meanings. I have clearer defined the words “bodily” and “autonomy” using standard reference material for the English language and showed how when combined they can mean precisely that. Your comment: “That is NOT the same as loss of bodily autonomy.” is simply incorrect based upon semantics.
                      The use of improper capitalization for emphasis doesn’t change that and only accentuates the fact it is purely your opinion.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      JH …

                      You and LB are having a spirited technicality argument. But I have a source for you, based on my reading your post: Roe v Wade

                      All other sources seek to defend (affirm) or oppose (circumvent) the legal and safe abortion rights granted by RVW … do you agree?

                      I ask, because the PLM has yet to get a powerful majority or minority to overturn RVW or any SCOTUS majority. I doubt RVW will ever be overturned, albeit some states (those in the control of GOP governors) are circumventing RVW in spirit. So what’s left strategy and tactic wise for PLM? Only four:

                      1. Continue to circumvent RVW at the state level.

                      2. Continue to guilt-trip females into having unwanted pregnancies, regardless of the circumstances into which the child will be born — usually poor and low-income.

                      3. Covert domestic terrorist activities that PLM tries to disassociate itself from.

                      4. Continue this specific culture war from generation to generation.

                      Here are the realities PLM won’t achieve:

                      1. Persuade America’s medical community (a consensus) to ascribe scientific-medical person-hood … human being status … to unborn fetuses that conflict with RVW.

                      2. Guilt-trip or mis-educate a majority of American females (teens and adults) to adopt an absolute pro-life poltiks … emphasis on females versus males.

                      Here are constructive efforts PLM won’t purse in collaboration with pro-choice stakeholders:

                      1. Re-allocate its labor and millions (resources) to reducing systemic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control … excluding setting up their own abortion providers beyond those that already exist.

                      In short, PLM has lost the culture war as it relates to criminalizing all abortions for American females — regressing America back to pre-RVW — although they may have more success promoting such overseas in less developed nations.

                      But I (as a male vs female) could be wrong on any or all of the above:)

                    • Crystal

                      “1. Re-allocate its labor and millions (resources) to reducing systemic
                      and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
                      procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
                      and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control …
                      excluding setting up their own abortions providers beyond those that
                      already exist.”

                      I believe in partial reallocation of the funds rather than complete, and that is where we will have a difference. However I believe we agree on these other measures you mentioned – “reducing systematic and institutional poverty, acknowledging overpopulation, developing
                      procreative abilities outside the female womb, and proactively promoting
                      and providing free or affordable access to all birth-control”.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      We’re not Saints. But we are near perfect C … LOL. I’ll love that!

                    • Crystal

                      I’m glad we found something to agree on in the midst of our disagreements!

                    • Jim H

                      My debate with LB is not about her position, per se. It is that I don’t see her arguments supporting that position as sound. They mainly consist of her personal opinion she provides little in the way of credible evidence to support that opinion. When factual evidence; e.g., statistics or semantics, to the contrary is presented, rather than address it, she builds a straw man. However, she doesn’t do any better with her straw man because she presents no credible evidence for that argument either.

                      Regarding Roe v Wade, I have stated, on many occasions that I do not believe it will ever be overturned, and pro-life people are wasting their time trying to do so.

                      I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people’s opinions on abortion. Most polls indicate the vast number of people do not favor overturning Roe v Wade in its entirety.

                      They (Pew and Gallop) also, indicate the majority do not support the extreme positions of either; opposition to abortions regardless of any circumstances, and support for abortions under any/all circumstances.
                      Most people end up somewhere in the middle.

                      I think the available data is clear about two things. The first is that most people have moral reservations about abortion. They and believe there must be some sort of justification or rationale for such an action.
                      The second is that most people do not believe abortions should simply be illegal.

                      I found some data from a poll commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee that had a greater degree of detail than most. It also assured I couldn’t be accused of a pro-abortion bias.
                      [http(colon)//www(dot)nationalrighttolifenews(dot)org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/#.VlAsbv9dFy0
                      I drew the following conclusions:

                      This poll showed only 11% are in favor of banning all abortions. The number who think it should be legal in all circumstance is almost the same at 12%. So, that correlates well with other poll data I’ve presented, so it appears to be very reasonable to say both represent extreme minority positions.

                      Only 30% see the stage of fetal development of the fetus as an exclusive criteria. 20% see three months (much like Roe v Wade’s trimester plan) as a cut-off point for abortions for any reason. Only 10% support viability (six months) as the cut-off point.
                      More people (over 42%) see other circumstances as a criteria for allowing abortion. Only 14% see the life of the mother as the sole criteria for allowing, those who include rape and incest represent another 14%. The study asked one question about all three circumstances together which was 28% and then asked exclusively about the life of the mother.

                      I need to take a break, but I will be happy to take up the rest of your comments soon.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      “I try to stay on top of surveys and statistical information concerning people’s opinions on abortion … Most people end up somewhere in the middle.”

                      Awesome JH. I too love credible data! In addition to the National Right to Life Committee data, do you have addition credible sources that show STRATIFIED STATS for Americas 7-Major Census racial groups, and within those 7-groups for Females and Males, and within these gender categories … for different age-groups, income-groups, education-groups, political parties, religion/no-religion, and sexual orientations?

                      1. White
                      2. Hispanic
                      3. Black
                      4. Asian
                      5. Bi-Racial
                      6. American Indian and Alaska Native
                      7. Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander

                    • Jim H

                      I have not come across any data filtered/sorted by racial group other than breaking Catholic responses down to White/Hispanic and Protestant into White/Black.
                      I think Pew broke down the opinions of people who pray daily about abortion by race but, if I remember correctly, there were only 5 racial categories.

                    • IrrationalHumanBeing

                      Thanks JH. I had this source in the past. But I lot it when I upgrade my desktop to a high powered laptop.

                      Your stats motivated me to ask, as I love stratified stats more so than aggregate stats. The latter tend to obscure what diverse attributes think about issues in America. For example how many females compared to males support or opposed abortions, especially as abortion impacts females in experience ways it doesn’t impact males. Within the female group, how do the different income classes, education groups, ages, races, and religious or non-religious, and political females think.

                      Too often we hear the media (fourth estate) say “Americans’ think this or oppose this. But that’s obfuscation … which Americans, how many, etc. This abstract meaning stats of … 90% of Americans or 57 of GOP, etc, obfuscates the stratified raw numbers of how diverse attributes of Americans think. It creates false impressions.

                    • Jim H

                      You are quite welcome. I am often frustrated because of the aggregation of survey data, but I try to do the best I can with what I can get.

                    • lady_black

                      A medical source? How about any medical dictionary? My knowledge is primary. I was taught in nursing school that abortion is the termination of pregnancy prior to viability. Since then they have tightened up the standards a bit, but it still amounts to the same thing.
                      Are you not aware that ALL pregnancies terminate? Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage. But since you evidently have a problem with this, tell me how YOU would term them?

                    • Jim H

                      “Whether they terminate in birth (delivery) or abortion is a matter of stage.”

                      Apparently, not:

                      Abortion – elective or therapeutic

                      Alternative names

                      Therapeutic abortion; Elective abortion

                      Definition

                      Elective or therapeutic abortion is the deliberate termination of a pregnancy.

                      http(colon)//medical-dictionary-search-engines(dot)com/encyclopedia/?encyclopedia_name_url=48&level=2

                      I would call it an abortion if it meets that criteria; i.e., it is intentional.

                      Do you have no reply to my other comments?

                    • lady_black

                      Under that logic, you are calling my daughter’s labor induction “an abortion.” Screw you. It was intentional. It was also a delivery.
                      Abortion (medically) applies to the* premature* termination of pregnancy by natural or induced means, and has no relationship to the life status of the fetus. An abortion, natural or induced, will always result in fetal death, because the fetus is unviable. A delivery will usually, but not always, result in a living child.

                    • Jim H

                      It’s not my logic, nor did I write that definition. I merely said I would define abortion in accord with it.

                      Your response was completely inappropriate. You apparently couldn’t argue factually, so instead, you (I suspect) feign personal hurt and outrage. You then “shoot the messenger”.

                      At least you have dropped the pretense of objectivity and civility.

                    • lady_black

                      Admit it. You made it up. It didn’t come from a medical dictionary. “The intentional termination of pregnancy” is NOT the medical definition of abortion. I tend to get angry with people who lie to my face. I have told you what I was taught in nursing school about what abortion means, and I have told you what the specific medical definition is. ALL pregnancies “terminate” and a great many of them are intentional, and are not abortions. And you can also lump my two C-sections, and my sister’s three C-sections in with your screwball definition of abortion as well. All were intentional. All terminated a pregnancy. NONE were abortions.

                    • Jim H

                      More kill the messenger responses from you and now the all out, murderous rage denoted by the dreaded ALL CAPS. I am almost to scared to respond.

                      Can you read? I provided even provided a link. Did I make up a website too, just to prove I was right?

                      I don’t care what you were taught in nursing school. My wife was taught a women couldn’t get pregnant the first time she had sex at a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic.

                    • lady_black

                      “I don’t care what you were taught in nursing school. My wife was taught a women couldn’t get pregnant the first time she had sex at a nursing school attached to the Mayo clinic.”

                      No, she was not taught that. They don’t teach “old wive’s tales” in nursing school. And you didn’t supply any link. You went to web.md, not a medical dictionary.

                    • Jim H

                      I’ll tell her you called her a liar. I doubt she lose much sleep over it. I simply see that as typical of your responses. I believe Web.md does provide sources. Besides, you made the assertion initially and you still haven’t provided any evidence, except your typical “because I said so!!”.
                      However, I have found your continuing nasty and condescending (though consistently wrong) motivational. Consequentially, its worth the effort to find and present evidence, for no other reason than to embarrass you.
                      Here’s how the Merc Manuals describe abortion:

                      “Induced abortion is the intentional ending of a pregnancy by surgery or drugs.”

                      https(colon)//www(dot)merckmanuals(dot)com/home/women’s-health-issues/family-planning/abortion

                    • This is 100% correct. A late-term abortion is a 2-3 day procedure because of the necessity of dilating the cervix with laminaria. This is why one of the arguments many pro-choice organizations used against the ban on D&X abortions (commonly referred as “partial-birth abortions”) that the ban would put women’s lives at risk was so deceptive. If a woman’s life is at risk late in pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion would never be done. An emergency C-section (like the one that was used to birth my youngest son Eli, whose umbilical cord had wrapped around his neck) can be done in 10-20 minutes.

                  • James

                    You are not going to change these people by being so sweet. I like you, but where is you RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION with these defenders of MURDER!?? Millions are dead because we TALKED and debated..there comes a time when we ignore these people and be plain spoken. Sorry site..Gone

                    • Crystal

                      Again, this is how I see it, James.

                      Legally speaking, abortion isn’t murder. But it should be made illegal so that unborn persons are protected.

                      Morally speaking, however, it IS and I have no problem saying that without apology; I have gotten into trouble for this on more than one occasion. I’m not sorry for that.

                      This is what I said once, and it earned me brownie points for intolerance:

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/friendlyatheist1/if_the_gop_defunded_planned_parenthood_this_is_how_americans_would_suffer/#comment-2203901557

                      My point is that I try to remember this: Loving, truthful people are almost always more persuasive than unloving, truthful people. I would rather turn people away from belief in abortion than ridicule them for it. Sometimes, people believe in abortion because they have heard no other way and it’s my job to let them know, there is another way. How am I going to communicate that if I am hostile to the people? The action, however, deserves righteous anger; I agree with you there and I admire your desire to speak out on behalf of the unborn. I hope this helps you understand better where I am coming from. I have no desire to compromise on the topic but rather to reach people with the truth and challenge them to think, and the best way to do that is to be respectful.

                      That being said, in a way I agree with you. The PL movement has made a shoddy job of things and it’s time we manned up and spoke about the action in the strongest of terms.

                    • Crystal

                      Another point – I respect the general commentariat at the site where I had that small confrontation, because the high majority of them have treated me with respect despite my strong stances on the matter, and I am willing to acknowledge that. However, a very small handful have been hostile and, while I respect them as people, I disagree with them and don’t have much to do with them as I’d rather talk to the majority, who at least respect me despite their disagreements with my views.

              • Those sources are using LMP instead of post-fertilization age. Post-fertilization age is around 21 days. Source: http://www.drplace.com/Evaluation_of_fetal_arrhythmias.16.20197.htm

                FYI: Don’t feel bad. Common pro-life confusion, and a lot of sources are vague about which they’re using. Most sources use LMP.

                • Crystal

                  Thank you, I did not know that before and I will have a look at the link when I have time.

            • Wild_Bird

              All human persons, both inside and outside the womb, are deserving of protection.
              Try again.

              • lady_black

                The only pregnancy you can protect is the one in your own uterus. There is no such neutral zone, known as “da woooomb” where “unborns” just hang out getting bigger without having negative effects on the health of real persons. No they are not persons. However, women are.

              • Jim H

                What you say seems to me to be intuitively true. However, if you say that to someone who doesn’t feel the same way, I don’t think just the fact that you believe it will impress or influence them very much, if at all. That seems to be the case here. Is there an actual reasonable argument you can make to support that statement or is it just a dogmatic, religious (or quasi-religious) assertion?

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                This statement isn’t fact-based. It’s a false equivalency of human life and legal status from conception to birth and post-birth. Why?

                1. From conception to birth, this “human person” isn’t such until viable outside the womb … and it comes a “human baby” … in all the medical and legal ways we define human person. Yes, prior to leaving the womb, potential human life becomes a baby, ready to be born. This gestation period and where to draw the philosophical, medical, and legal line is contested … has been and continues to be, where viability outside the womb, human baby independence is used a philosophical, medical, and legal test for legal person hood.

                2. If you’re male, you have no experiential clue! You cannot fathom what it feels like pro and con to have a potential human life growing inside you, being inextricable dependent upon your teen or adult female incubator body, and even then maybe never being born due to all kinds of complications — including the female and MIA biological father not wanting the responsibility of parenthood.

                3. All humans are deserving of anything and everything a Utopian Society could offer. Yet we haven’t created that world yet. So why pretend procreation takes place within such an imaginary Utopian world and all females are Human Incubators should they decide to abort or the potential human life inside them dies due to complications.

                4. Is male sperm (which is life and contributes to creating potential life) deserving of legal protections (some full or partial legal human status) inside and outside my testicles. No, I’m not being silly or cheeky. I’m serious, in that any human body parts or content can be arbitrarily defined as being LIFE and essential to creating potential human life. But then again we’d be compartmentalizng and drawing lines … maybe the penis and sperm or maybe the vagina and egg and anything or everything else that contributes to that “baby” being born.

                5. The next time we step on a bug or kill a mouse we might want to remember all life isn’t precious, equally valued, and most definitely legally protected … Slavery … Second Class Citizenship … Terrorists … all of whom were born supposedly innocent babies before they became categorized as disposable and expendable human beings deserving to be terminated … aborted in the real world … before living out their natural aging life cycle.

                The human species has no problem justifying which life we kill and why … human and non-human cells, potential human and potential non-human life, and all human and non-human life post-birth … like my porterhouse well-done steaks (animal LIFE) and veggies and fruits (plant life) I eat. To a vegan or vegetarian, I’m a disgusting meat-eating cannibal, LOL. Pro Life doesn’t mean ALL LIFE.

                • James

                  ..according to atheist scientist..j.Of course it’s human and a baby..you silly fool! The terminology used in science does not negate the OBVIOUS!

                  • IrrationalHumanBeing

                    I’m the fool?

                    Or, you’re irrational for seeking to get the police-powers of the state to forced 4.4 billion cis females out of 7.4 billion humans to carry a fetus inside them until born regardless of her circumstances or any laws that pernit her to abort up to a certain stage of the fetus’ development?

                    Good luck!

                    The ProLifeMovement (and its religious or secular ideology and politik) is a futile cause. But, please, continue to squander your limited and precious time and rescources, all of which could go towards ending all ISMs that make the quality of life of humans after they’re born a wretched misery or horrible death.

                    Terminology is a social construct. Power to dictate or influence the life choices of 4.4 billion females, their scope of self-actualization, is a reality-check.

                    How efficacious has the PLM been in ending ProChoice world wide … success defined as not one single female worldwide being able to abort if she choices, assuming the safe means are available to her?

                  • James, I’m banning you and IrrationalHumanBeing for calling each other names on multiple occasions. Absolutely a violation of our comments policy.

              • I think we agree on the conclusion, but the “try again” you added here is fairly snarky, or at least doesn’t tend to lead to productive dialogue between people who disagree. Please refrain from jabs like that on this forum. Thanks.

                • Wild_Bird

                  Again, I dumped your pathetic site 2 months ago.
                  Get a life.

            • James

              I believe you believe that. That’s how foolish you sound.I’m embarrassed for you.

              • lady_black

                I believe that because it’s true. Remove it from the woman’s body, and put in in a bassinet. You can feed it.

        • James

          Oh..use the term fetus. To suggest there is no baby makes you sound like a fool!

          • lady_black
            • Fair question. No, it doesn’t look like a baby to me.

              That’s why I’m not pro-life because I get warm, fuzzy feelings when I look at an embryo. I don’t. I’m pro-life because one of the strongest beliefs I have is that all human adults should have an equal right to life, and when I try to make sense of that view, I come to believe that it must be because we all have something in common, something that we have equally.

              Most pro-choice people I talk to think that thing is something like sentience, self-awareness, viability, or something similar. The problem with all of the pro-choice definitions I’ve heard is they either would give the equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, and/or they would exclude newborns from having an equal right to life.

              I think having the intrinsic ability to think and act morally is the thing that ACTUALLY makes us equal. But that’s a rational view, not an emotional one.

              • lady_black

                We do not all have an “intrinsic” ability to think and act morally, and no, we are not all equal.
                I’m very cautious to label anything with “intrinsic value” because value is highly situational. Just as an example of that, were I to have a choice between being marooned away from civilization with a) the Hope Diamond, or b) a magnifying glass, I would find the magnifying glass to be of much greater value than the gemstone. Priceless items in such a situation quickly become “just another pebble.”
                Adult women are of more value than any hundred fetuses, and that’s just how it is.

                • An intrinsic ability is not the potential to develop an ability, it’s an ability that you have in virtue of the kind of thing you are. I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters.

                  You can certainly argue that that intrinsic ability is NOT something that matters morally, but arguing that not everybody has that intrinsic ability seems to me to be a losing argument.

                  Your paragraph about intrinsic value is confusing to me, because you say that value is situational, and then describe the case where two items have different instrumental value depending on the situation. So we certainly agree about the thought experiment you made, but it’s not about intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the idea that something has value because of the kind of thing it is. Instrumental value is when something has value because somebody else values it, like dollar bills, or a magnifying glass.

                  So when you assert that “adult women are more valuable than any hundred fetuses,” I would ask you what you mean by “value.” Presumably you mean “instrumental value,” because it doesn’t look like you meant “intrinsic value” in anything you said. I would agree that an adult woman has more instrumental value than any hundred fetuses. I would however argue that all people have equal intrinsic value, because people are things with serious moral status.

                  I think most likely the main area where we disagree is I think a human fetus is a person, and you don’t. I’m glad to discuss that. I know that fetuses are not clear cases of persons for many people.

                  I’m open to the argument that some people are more intrinsically valuable than others, but it’ll be pretty hard to convince me, because one of the strongest views I have is that all people are equally intrinsically valuable.

                  *Enjoying the discussion, but forgive me if I don’t respond quickly in the next few weeks. We’re about to leave for two trips, and won’t be able to access my computer very much during them. :)

                  • lady_black

                    Women are more valuable than fetuses both instrumentally and intrinsically. And seriously, how much “naturally ordered ability to think and act morally” does your 18 month old have? Or even a three year old? Because some humans will never progress past that point in development. And I would never chose to deliberately bring one of those into the world. That wouldn’t be loving. It’s difficult enough to deal with children that you don’t lay awake at night worrying about what will become of them when you die. That would be a horrible burden to inflict on someone without the means to do it.

                    • “Women are more valuable than fetuses both instrumentally and intrinsically.”

                      A huge part of the debate hinges upon that question. I’m more interested in arguments for a view versus merely asserting a view.

                      My argument that both have the same intrinsic value is that I don’t think we can make sense of human equality in a way that makes sense without excluding the unborn. I want to know WHY all humans should have an equal right to life EXCEPT for the unborn, in a way that’s not ad hoc. Every attempt I’ve seen by pro-choice people to define personhood as something like sentience or self-awareness or viability has at least one of two problems: they either give an equal right to life to lower mammals like squirrels, or they exclude obvious cases of persons like newborns.

                      Again, I want to hear your argument for why the unborn aren’t persons, but simply asserting that women are more valuable isn’t enough.

                      “And seriously, how much ‘naturally ordered ability to think and act morally’ does your 18 month old have?”

                      You misquoted me. I said, “I believe that all humans, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered toward developing the ability to think and act morally, and that is what matters.”

                      The way you quoted me changes what we’re talking about from an intrinsic ability to an immediate ability. It’s worse than a strawman. It’s literally quoting me as if I’m saying the OPPOSITE of what I’m saying.

                      I believe all humans, including fetuses, because of the kind of thing they are, are naturally ordered towards developing the ability to think and act morally, thus they have the intrinsic ability as soon as they are their own organism.

                    • lady_black

                      Because, sir, you do NOT have “a right to life.” Only the right not to be unjustly killed.
                      I’d like to know why YOU think a fetus possesses a right you don’t have, to wit, the right to take what you need to live from the body of another? Nobody has that right. Not you, not me, and not my born children. And before they were born, they had no such “right” either.
                      That’s the crux of the issue. Answer the following question:
                      My body belongs to________.
                      a) You.
                      b) The state.
                      c) The church.
                      d) Anyone and everyone who “needs it.”
                      e) Me.
                      Answer, using yourself, and you will have your answer.

                    • I actually agree with your first sentence. When I say “right to life” I basically mean “the right to not be unjustly killed.” So we’re on the same page there.

                      My body belongs to me, but that doesn’t give me the right to directly kill people with my body.

                      I don’t think a mother is intrinsically obligated to carry her child up until birth. I know that sounds weird, but stay with me. If we could Star Trek beam the baby into an artificial womb that it could survive in, I’m fine with that. The problem is that the only alternative to her carrying her child until birth is intentionally destroying her child. Given our current technology, she has to carry the child but it’s because of the alternatives. She cannot kill the unborn child. She cannot kill a born child who wants her kidney, though she can deny the kidney. She can unplug from the violinist, she may not take a machete to him.

                      I notice that you haven’t responded to any of my arguments regarding human equality.

                    • lady_black

                      That’s too damn bad. She doesn’t need to use her body to sustain fetal life, or any life. And neither do you.
                      Abortion is more on point with unplugging the violinist. He will die. But he never had the right to use her body to sustain his life to begin with. That requires continuing consent.
                      I haven’t addressed human equality, because it’s irrelevant. We all EQUALLY have no right to level a claim to the body of another. How’s that?

                    • Crystal

                      I hope you don’t mind if I ask a clarification question here – do you believe that direct killing of the fetus via abortion = unplugging and asserting bodily autonomy?

                    • lady_black

                      Yes. That the fetus will not survive without her body is not her problem.

                    • Crystal

                      Thanks, now I understand where you are coming from better.

                    • And this is where we disagree. I think the biggest disanalogy between Thomson’s violinist story and at least most abortion methods is the difference between letting someone die of a kidney illness and directly killing another human being that you were responsible for creating.

                    • Crystal

                      Actually I believe that non-humans deserve an equal right to life because how we treat animals today will determine how we treat humans in the future:

                      “The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated” – Mahatma Ghandi

                      http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html

                      The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
                      Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
                      The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
                      Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
                      The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

                      Mahatma Gandhi
                      Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html
                      The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

                      Mahatma Gandhi
                      Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/mahatmagan150700.html

    • James

      You have autonomy over your body and no one would argue that point. You cannot have autonomy over the unborn’s RIGHTS when you feel like it. God given rights to life.There is a point in society where the line must be drawn or we will end up allowing the woman to be the CHOOSER of who lives and dies,ONLY! Where do we draw that line? Where women determine it to be? That is the problem..A woman does not have 4 arms and 2 heads. You sound like a progressive socialist,indeed. You use the word draconian, and the terms slave and prisoner. Wonder what that baby would call it when the mother can determine it’s fate? MERCIFUL?

      • lady_black

        That fetus (not “baby”) has no thoughts. So let’s get that out of the way first. Secondly, I do NOT get to choose “who lives and who dies.” But I sure as HELL get to choose what happens inside my own skin, and you do not.
        I would no more seek your advice on my pregnancy than I would stop the trash collector and ask him for stock tips. You are not a doctor. You aren’t a medical professional of any kind. You lack even any practical experience that might tend to lend credence to anything you have to say.
        To put it bluntly, if there is any “line-drawing” to be done, it will be done by ME, with the advice of my medical doctor. Just as it was for every other surgery I have ever had done. I wouldn’t ask you. I wouldn’t even ask my own husband! It’s not HIS NECK and it isn’t yours, either. I would certainly tell my husband if I were planning to go through with any procedure, because I respect him. And because he respects me, his answer has always been “Whatever you decide is best.”

  • lady_black

    No offense intended, Thomas.

  • lady_black

    You might try addressing the point?

    • Thomas

      I’m looking for confirmation of my points from the proabort movement. That would include recognition from proabort sites and PP that they’ve long engaged in intellectual dishonesty and lying. Why do you think I asked if I should hold my breath? The proabort movement will never concede on anything. I guess I have free reign at continually using the term PROABORT.

      • lady_black

        Nice word salad. What do you want pro-choice people to concede on? That there are too many abortions? I think I did that. I also provided a three-prong strategy to combat the problem, and challenged you to help make it happen. Because CLEARLY, just banning abortion is not an option and will not stop any abortions.
        I believe that we can address the problems that lead to abortion, but we seem to lack the political will to do so. We just wish to take the lazy approach, and not address the social realities that lead to it. That has never worked, and it won’t work now, either. Other countries that do follow the approach I have laid out have much lower abortion rates than we have, without draconian legislation. I guess it depends on whether you really want to reduce abortion, or whether you just want to trample on women.
        Now, kindly address what I actually said, or accept that you have lost the debate.

        • James

          There is your problem. You think killing the baby is a debate. That is exactly what you are saying. Killing less by enacting legislation will do what? Lessen the slaughter of the unborn? At what point does morality enter into your philosophical equation? The only one who loses is the BABY! Once again you use ”draconian”. What the hell do you think abortion is when fewer are done. Still killing! Where is the moral factor of sexual restraint in any of your comments? You are looking for debating the life of a baby..just like the abortionist does, right before the slaughter takes place!

          • lady_black

            There is no baby. I don’t CARE if you believe it to be killing. YOU should probably never have an abortion.
            My mother had an abortion, and I am so glad she survived that WANTED pregnancy that was killing her. I got to have her back to raise my little sister and me. I got a little brother a couple years later. But the reality is that mom owed her children a mother. Not a sibling. At least she was smart enough to realize that. Abortion was illegal then. That’s why she had to be at death’s door before the pregnancy was terminated, even though she begged them to terminate it. I’m not really interested in going back to that time. And if there are any women that you love in your own life, you wouldn’t be either.

            • I’m so sorry to hear what happened to your mom, Lady Black. :(

              I don’t think anybody here disagrees with abortion to save the life of the mother when there is no way to save both lives.

              Whether or not there is a “baby” or “person” killed in elective abortions could lead to some productive dialogue though.

              • lady_black

                That’s what happens when abortion is illegal. The least you could do is own it. The word “elective” is not synonymous with “unnecessary.”
                Here’s the thing: Both my mother and Savita Halappanavar (in Ireland a couple years back) should have been given abortions because they ASKED for one. Neither one had viable pregnancies. That can’t happen where abortion is illegal.
                I myself have gone to great lengths to carry a pregnancy to term. That doesn’t mean I expect that everyone else will, or even CAN. Without a very supportive family, it would have been out of the question. Without access to welfare and Medicaid, it would have been out of the question. With my condition I certainly couldn’t WORK.
                The second you people start voting, NOT for people who will make abortion illegal, but for people who will make contraceptives of all kinds available widely and free, for people who will not shred the social safety nets but make them widely available for everyone, including low-income women and their children, I may begin to believe that you’re serious about reducing abortion.
                As long as you make it obvious that your real goal is to punish women, and especially so if they’re poor, I won’t listen to a word you have to say on the subject. Criminalizing something is way too easy. Putting your money and political support where your mouth is tells me you aren’t taking the piss.

      • Jim H

        Feel free to hold your breath. I doubt the “proabort” movement and PP will shed a tear. It is not a very effective threat.

        Does the “proabort” movement even have some sort of pope, patriarch, or governing body that could speak for the thoughts and actions of all of them? If so, have you let them know of your demands and threats of self-affixation if they are not met?

        You seem to have a quite exaggerated sense of your on importance making such demands or even thinking anyone really cares about what you think.

        I was beginning to be interested in your thoughts before you made this megalomaniacal comment. It appears, you have some issues with reality so I would ask two things:

        You do realize that if you hold your breath long enough, you will pass out and begin to breathe making your self affixation threat comical, at best, just sad at worst.

        Also, you seemed quite rational in your one post and in this one you seem to have gone off the reality track. Were you taking meds when you wrote the first and since have stopped? It is like Jekyll and Hyde.

        What’s is up with that? Also, why is the “Tom” thing such a big deal?

        • Thomas

          Did you just refer to my use of “should I hold my breath” as a threat? My initial intuition of not wanting to engage with you was just validated Jim. I’m parting ways with you. Sayonara.

          • Jim H

            You really have no sense of humor, do you?

            As I said previously, feel free to do what you want. However, I assume no obligation to refrain from commenting on what you say.

            I can’t help but suspect that you wish to break contact because you have stated that you do not share the majority view of your gang back at LAN and wish to avoid further confirmation of it.
            Also, you may have realized how silly your demands of a response from the proabort crowd was, as I pointed out:
            Does the “proabort” movement even have some sort of pope, patriarch, or governing body that could speak for the thoughts and actions of all of them?

            I do think that you show, at the very least, extreme mood swings and might wish to seek professional help.

          • lady_black

            Oh, go play with the ugly doll in your picture, fetus-fetishist.

            • Crystal

              I mean this respectfully but you could be banned for that (I am not the moderator here, Josh is); name-calling is not tolerated here:

              blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

              Please read the comment policy before continuing to comment here. Thank you.

            • You had been warned before about our comments policy. You’ve shown a pattern of snarkiness and name-calling, on a forum where we promote respectful disagreement and open-minded dialogue. You’ve left me with no choice but to follow our comments policy and ban you. I’m sorry we couldn’t have the kind of intellectual dialogue I was hoping for. Have a nice day.

      • IrrationalHumanBeing

        ROFLMAO

        Sounds like a neat term to me. I use the terms “Pro-Birth” and “Pro-Death” to characterize the so-called “Pro Life Movement” … Yep, a bunch of misguided “Domestic Terrorists” to be precise …

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/29/politics/mike-huckabee-planned-parenthood-domestic-terrorism/

        • Crystal

          I am sorry you feel that way about us. I can assure you we are not terrorists.

          I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive. If I’m not allowed to say “pro-abort” despite having very *good* reasons for using the term, then it would be a good thing for advocates for legal abortion to reciprocate the favour, if you understand what I mean.

          That put aside, I think we share a lot in common and you would be an interesting person to talk to.

          • IrrationalHumanBeing

            “I would respectfully ask you not to call us pro-death because it is extremely offensive”

            I don’t care if your ego is offended by the term. Your politiks in the real-world doesn’t care about the harm it inflicts on women. Yet you have the audacity to be upset about the terms used to critique your politiks. Like I said … Pro Life Movement = Domestic Terrorist! Now, if you’re offended, renounce your sexism, and become Pro-Choice!

            • Crystal

              I could call your movement pro-abort (because I would have good reason to do so), but I won’t.

              Also, I’m very sad that we can’t talk about the things we have in common. I saw you were a multicultural, third-wave, feminist, African-American man, and I thought that was so nice, because I deeply appreciate multicultural, third-wave philosophy. I’d like to talk to you about these things and to understand why you advocate for abortion to remain legal, but I’m not sure I can if you’re going to take digs at me the way you did.

            • James

              You are a typical left winged atheist. I would love to offend you but that would be impossible when you have no integrity. I am not as polite as some in here. I know a J. A. when I see one. Giddy up!

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                I’m “agnostic” … any more PLM irrational projections?

        • James

          I wouldn’t be as polite as some on this site with you pal. So I will just say..thank your mom for letting you live.CNN is a great source for leftist misfits!

          • IrrationalHumanBeing

            I don’t thank my Mom for letting me live! I had no choice in that decision!

            But if you want to get into history, I hope your ancestors weren’t the colonial slave masters of my ancestors or racist 1920 whites whom made the life of my grandparents and parents a living nightmare, one they barely survived, and racist whites whom didn’t care about the ProLife of anyone black, cuz they viewed that melanin attribute to be subhuman, inferior.

            Perhaps our species would be more evolved if every single racist white person on this planet, but especially colonial Americans, had been aborted … not lived to create a wretched nightmare for millions of generations of non-whites … pro-life wise!

            Learn your history James!

      • lady_black

        Who cares what term you use? You don’t get to define me.

    • James

      Glad you’re not asking me. It would be very frank!

  • Jim H

    My point about getting yourself banned was about more than your use of the word proabort. You essentially said you give as good as you get on such sites and it just gets in getting you banned. That means you accomplish nothing. Like Josh, whose site we are on, I fail to see that as productive and I certainly wouldn’t brag about it.

    I actually do not believe it is factual untrue or intellectually dishonest to refer to people who believe in abortion-on-demand without apology as pro-abortion, particularly if they favor abortion over all other alternative.

    However, the question in my mind is what does that accomplish? It is meant to be pejorative and only encourages the use of terms like “forced birther” in response. Why not just refer to people by the terms they self identify as prefer; i.e., pro-life or pro-choice?

    It is a bit like referring to “gays” as “queers” and than wondering why they dismiss pretty much everything you say.

    If you characterize your use of that word as only descriptive of those who support abortion-on-demand without apology. I must point out that I have (1) misunderstood your position and (2) point out you seem to be out of step with most pro-life people I’ve asked.

    Most apply that term to anyone who does not share the view that, in its strictest approach, abortion should not be allowed in any reason, or, in its slighter more moderate form, in the case of the health of the mother.

    If I have mischaracterized your position, I not only apologize, but I commend you for not merely being a follower. Do any of your friends back at LAN know this about you?

    You misunderstand me, I am not determined to disregard the any intellectual dishonesty on the part of those who those who support abortion-on-demand without apology and I am not among their number. I take strong exception to any position that fails to see the fate of the fetus as a moral consideration and sees only the mother’s interests as relevant. I waged that war on a site called Love, Joy and Feminism over at Pathos over that for some time before giving up on them.

    If you are going to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty and bad faith arguments, I challenge you to show me where I have been inconsistent and/or dishonest in my argument, as well where I have every made an argument for abortion on demand.
    If you can’t do that you owe me an apology.

    • James

      Personally, I have no problem being honest. Queer and Gay has two different meanings.. May sound rude, but you’re saying play the game with their rules and allow them to make them up as we go forth. That is what happened with abortion. Millions have paid the price for word games. At some point those words just lacked any force to stop the action of slaughter! It-is time to be a little more rude towards the evil that is obvious. God help us if one is offended by a wrong moniker!

      • Jim H

        Stereotyping anyone who disagrees and calling them pejorative names is immature and ineffective. It only serves to further polarize people on an important, but sensitive topic . For the past 40+ years, with close to 60 million abortions having occurred, its pretty safe to characterize the approach of the pro-life movement as pretty much a dismal failure.
        But, if you want to support continuing to pursue a failing strategy, I certainly can’t stop you. You can continue to be proud that you haven’t compromised any of your lofty principles as nothing really changes.

    • Well said.

      • Jim H

        Thank you.

  • In case you’re ever wondering why you were banned, PJ4, it was because of this comment.

  • IrrationalHumanBeing

    Many “bigoted White Americans” have responded to the recent “Jihadist Shootings” by blaming “2 billion Muslims world-wide” to include Muslim American Citizens in the U.S. In this article I WON’T SHOW why such racist claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence, including White America’s history and present-day practices of “RACIST STEREOTYPING”.

    • Guest

      You can count the number of people sympathetic to the pro-life cause that have actually killed people for ideological reasons on your fingers. Most (if not all) of them are just like Robert Dear – mentally unstable loners with criminal backgrounds living in sheds or off the grid. To date, no pro-life activist has ever flown an airplane into a building, strapped a bomb to his face, thrown acid on a woman’s face for going to school, beheaded a journalist, or opened fire on an office because of a cartoon. There aren’t tens of millions of pro-life advocates applauding such behaviour. There are no organized anti-abortion terrorist groups on social media promising young people 72 virgins if they leave their families to overthrow the government and destroy monuments. You don’t see a huge fraction of the pro-life population that believes in killing their daughters for dishonouring their families (by changing religion, or by refusing to cover their hair/forehead/face/full body).

      Unless you can say the same about jihadists, stop insulting victims of radical Islam by suggesting the two are even remotely similar.

      • IrrationalHumanBeing

        https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate

        When every single rabid racist white member of a hate group is DEAD then YOU can cherry-pick which human beings aren’t terrorist and which are … HYPOCRITE!

        • Crystal

          I can understand your frustration, but I think we’re getting a little off-topic here. If this article was covering Islam I’d discuss that with you. However it’s not.

          • IrrationalHumanBeing

            Sorry, C.

            I read the article. I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist? This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs.

            In other words, if we “compartmentalized” our analysis (online and offline) … don’t conduct “comparative analysis” of politically motivated murders … then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of “hate” and “dogma” all potential DTs share … whether its specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc … notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism.
            In other words C … this article is a political polemic … not legal analysis … about whether a Mass Murders whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist. The same polemic could be written by any political group … including DAESH … regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks. But if you don’t see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I’ll respect the articles’ online compartmentalization … although offline that’s not how reality work .. and I can 100% guarantee you “compartmentalization” isn’t how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analyst are viewed these Mass Murders … to the contrary they’re looking for “common patterns” of “ideological and political dogma”.

            Thank you C for your tough-love feed-back:)

            • Crystal

              No apology required.

              I think it fair to state that I apologise for misunderstanding your intentions. It seemed to me, at the time, that the comment about jihad was completely unrelated to the issue at hand, namely, anti-abortion terrorism. I appreciate
              your explaining your intentions as to *why* you made that particular comment; now I understand a little better where you are coming from and this is very helpful in that it puts your comments in context.

              “I thought the unspoken issue raised in the PLM article was whether people identifying with the politics of PLM should be viewed as potential Domestic Terrorist?

              This ISSUE speaks to all people whom identify with the politics of other groups and whether they too can be defined as potential DTs.”

              AFAIK you were correct to judge that that was the topic the article was discussing. This is the intention of the article, and I quote:

              “Many pro-choice people have responded to the recent shooting by blaming pro-life advocates. In this article I show why such claims are completely unjustified by analyzing culpability and what it means to incite violence.”

              “In other words C … this article is a political polemic … not legal analysis … about whether a Mass Murder whom identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a Domestic Terrorist.”

              No, it isn’t a legal analysis. But it’s not about whether a mass murderer who identifies with and articulates PLM politics is a domestic terrorist either. I’m pretty sure the author of this article *would* recognise him as a domestic terrorist or a murderer at the very least. It’s an article written by a
              prolifer who recognises that anti-abortion terrorism is a problem, and is seeking to explain why most prolifers are not responsible for one man’s actions. Yet it’s also explaining how a person *could* incite violence through their words so that they can avoid falling into that trap when they honestly
              critique the abortion issue.

              “In other words, if we “compartmentalized” our analysis (online and offline) … don’t conduct “comparative analysis” of politically motivated murders … then we fail to identify and deconstruct the common patterns of “hate” and “dogma” all potential DTs share … whether it’s specifically PL mass-murders, School mass-murders, Jihadist mass-murders, Gang mass-murders, etc … notwithstanding our federal government has official definitions of domestic terrorism.”

              Since seeking to analyse the commonalities between different types of mass murderers seemed to be your intentions when you commented and called the PL movement a terrorist organisation, I actually appreciate the critique because I think it is good to hear a dissenting voice.

              “The same polemic could be written by any political group … including DAESH … regarding any person identifying with and articulating their politks.”

              I can agree with that because it’s true.

              “But if you don’t see these common patterns comparatively between all these mass-murders, then I’ll respect the articles’ online compartmentalization … although offline that’s not how reality works.”

              Well, would you mind explaining the common patterns comparatively between the mass-murders of PL and jihad, because I have no problem having that conversation with you at all.

              “I can 100% guarantee you “compartmentalization” isn’t how our NSA, CIA, FBI, and ATF intelligence analysts view these mass murders. To the contrary they’re looking for “common patterns” of “ideological and political dogma”.”

              Oh, okay. Fair enough.

              Let’s see here: there is surely a difference between criticising an ideology and hating people who believe that ideology, yes? Please remember that when you critique, because the prolifers I know are good people who would never want to terrorise any abortion practitioner. Yet I admit that there are some who wish to employ these kinds of tactics on abortion practitioners and it is not helpful. I am open to hearing evidence on either side either for or against the idea that the
              PL movement generally supports terrorism, although, so far as I know, it doesn’t. So if you have genuine evidence and can prove it I will at least look at it.

              In other words, seeking to accuse prolife *people*, out the gate, of holding terrorist notions or ideas won’t help, and the moderators will not appreciate condemnation of *people*. However, a thoughtful analysis of why you believe the
              PL *movement* supports domestic terrorism would contribute greatly to the content of this forum as that is very much part of the subject that the moderators want everyone to discuss, AFAIK.

              Last but not least you were far *more* on-topic than I realised so thanks for clearing up the confusion. I have no problem resuming this conversation if you are so inclined. So thanks for your contributions!

              • IrrationalHumanBeing

                HI C.

                Thanks for your thoughtful, rational, and compassionate feed-back. Here’s the feed-back you ask me to provide:

                “seeking to accuse prolife *people*, out the gate, of holding
                terrorist notions or ideas won’t help, and the moderators will not appreciate
                condemnation of *people*”

                If this protocol were factual then PL wouldn’t be permitted to “promote” their political ideology, values, and agenda on Disgus or other sites with the above protocol. Why? Because the PLM argues the following online and offline:

                PLM IDEOLOGY

                1. Every unborn fetus aborted in America and in the world is murder.

                2. Only females … not males … can get pregnant.

                3. Only female … not males … can abort their pregnancy.

                4. Any female whom decides to abort her pregnancy is a murderer.

                5. Any medical staff that performs an abortion is complicit in murder.

                6. Any citizens whom supports a female aborting her pregnancy is complicity in murder.

                7. Any government that legalizes abortion is complicit in murder.

                8. The total number of abortions perform in the past, present, and future constitute on-going genocide … mass-murder.

                PLM OVERT POLITIKS

                1. Use religion and bogus science to redefine human life and personhood

                2. Use religion and bogus science to guilt-trip all females into being pro-birth

                3. Use religion and bogus science to characterize pro-choice as mass-murder … genocide

                4. Use religion and bogus science to lobby government (federal, state, county, and local) to revoke Roe v Wage and restrict all abortions in all states via state anti-abortion laws — circumvent RVW by creating administrative procedures that are near impossible to meet by females seeking legal and safe abortion, abortion providers, and citizens support pro-choice

                PLM COVERT POLITIKS

                1. Oppose all forms of birth-control (including any type of legal and safe “abortifacient” medications after conception) that preempt females from getting pregnant and aborting post-conception … beyond opposing traditional invasive abortion medical procedures

                2. Only support (but don’t advocate) abstinence … even though such a 1-size-fits-only natural birth-control method isn’t realistic in the 21st Century to significantly defer sexual activity, motivate planned responsible parenthood, to address recreational sex for non-married or married persons

                3. Exaggerate and out-right-lie about pro-choice and planned parenthood activities … by pandering to the sexism, racism, and class-bigotry of citizens whom aren’t fact-based informed and savvy about the pros and cons of political issues and what the pro and con DISPARATE impact would be on different groups of females (and males) if proposed public policies (such as revoking Roe v Wade) were to be revoked

                4. Bully, intimidate, bomb, and murder pro-choice advocates and medical staff and harass, intimidate, and shame females seeking legal and safe abortions

                WHY THIS IDEOLOGY AND POLITIKS IS TERRORIST DOGMA

                PLM “ideology and politks” (dogma) accuses millions of Americans and our Federal Government of being mass-murders … committing genocide. This type of dogma doesn’t primarily focus on the systemic and institutional reasons for why POOR females get abortions. This dogma primarily focuses on poor and low-income females … rarely wealthy females whom can get an abortion anywhere even if criminalized in America. This dogma has only one political agenda … that all females in America and world-wide whom get pregnant for any reasons whatsoever and no matter what their personal and societal circumstances ABSOLUTELY MUST give birth to any and all pregnancies … become Human Incubators … and if these females or anyone else does anything that prevents these births then these persons are mass-murderers … enabling genocide. PLM cannot IDEOLOGICALLY claim millions of Americans are conducting mass-murder … genocide … females getting legal and safe abortions and their supports … but then pretend their POLITIKS (overt and covert) doesn’t seek to rehabilitate and punish any and all persons they claim are mass-murders and committing genocide. PLM … especially its less sophisticated members … are DISINGENUOUS if they claim their ideology and politiks doesn’t promote domestic terrorism … and rationalize and justify it as SELF-DEFENSE OF THE UNBORN. Trying to distance themselves from members whom engage in domestic terrorism or pretend PLM ideology and politiks doesn’t inherently promote domestic terrorism … against “mass-murderers” and “genocide” … versus only pacifist activism … is a LIE. PLMs covertly approve of all past and present-day domestic terrorist attacks on PP … although publicly they’re pretend to condemn it, oppose it … as evidence by a PLM advocating writing a propaganda article (polemic) to challenge and reduce any public backlash against PLM … it’s ideology and politics … whether they promote and incite domestic terrorism. PLM will even go as far as arguing … only X-Number of our members committed X-Number of mass-murders (acts of domestic terrorism) compared to A-Group, B-Group, C-Group .. and using A-Method, B-Method … and that’s why we’re NOT LIKE THOSE GROUPS.

                In short, C … PLM continues to exist and flourish for the comparable reasons why all the Hate Groups on the SPLC continue to exist and flourish … because 198 million White (Hegemonic) Americans get to self-interest cherry-pick and compartmentalize which ideologies and politiks are or aren’t domestic terrorists … until they, themselves, become the targets of another groups ideology and politks that claims Whites are mass-murderers and committing genocide … or what DAESH (ISIS) from their self-serving ideology and politics would call “Infidels” whom need to be stopped by any means necessary. Like I said, any political/culture war group can rationalize its ideology and justify its politiks … if one doesn’t compartmentalize their analysis and identifies and recognizes the common patterns of dogma each promotes to their members the broader world. What’s even more stunning is how groups whom claim not to be promoting domestic terrorism will hypocritically characterize other groups to be domestic terrorist. For example, PLM members (and all whom identify with PLM) define any and all females worldwide whom abort as inferior (pro-abortion murderers — genociders) while all females whom never abort (except covertly) as superior (pro-life anti-abortion abolitionist). in contrast, Pro-Choice isn’t Pro-Abortion. It’s Pro-Women/Pro-Baby … where ALL FEMALES get to CHOOSE. But PLM ideology and politiks wants to eliminate and criminal that choice worldwide, even though PLM knows what horrible history women experienced (especially poor and low income women) prior to Roe v Wade … back alley abortions, unwarranted pregnancies (especially from rape/incest), crime/gangs/etc.

                It’s impossible to ideologically called millions of Americans mass-murderers … accuse them of committing genocide … and still claim the ideology that claims this and seeks to stop and punish it … doesn’t promote domestic terrorism … even if our federal government has yet to officially define it as such:

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

                P.S.. I will honor your moderator request not to post my tough-love-critiques about this PLM polemic article or my own political critiques that PLM is a DTG. I’m not post on the topic … because if I do … I’m not going to be inauthentic … validate and affirm or be an apologists for PLM. For me not to post on PLM topics would be respecting their 1st Amendment Rights … just as I respect the 1st Amendment Rights of all those Hate Groups on the SPLC website … even if I loathe their ideology and politics. Consider this my last post on PLM topics out of reluctant love and respect for your members but positive love and respect for YOU … your LEADERSHIP. Just be cautioned … HER-Story may not judge you kindly … should you achieve Phyllis Schlafly status:)

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly

                • Crystal

                  I just found this really neat article; could you pick up a conversation at
                  this point; I left a comment at this article and could you respond to it as it’s not about prolife:

                  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/can-we-talk-about-those-faux-victorians.html#comment-2410200298

                  Also there’s another comment I would appreciate your thoughts on at this address, if that’s okay, as this is from the article about rape culture you read last night:

                  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/12/the-word-is-rape.html#comment-2410203572

                • Crystal

                  Hi IHB

                  I deeply appreciate that you explained what you believe about the movement itself without attacking those who adhere to PL belief. It was a very thorough and thought-provoking critique, IMO. I don’t really have too much to say in response except that it is an area worth seriously researching and self-examining, more than I have. If you’re wrong, I will let you know. But if you’re right, I’ll let you know that too.

                  I don’t represent or belong to the PL movement but am rather an outlier, because it is run, at least in part, by conservative Christian people who believe in old-fashioned abstinence ideals that don’t help matters any. In my heart, I left it a while back (I was never officially part of it) because I questioned some of their legislative methods and could see their laws generally (not always, but generally) weren’t helping. I’m still PL in my heart and I’m
                  open to listening to both sides (prolife and advocate for legal abortion) of the topic so I can learn more about how to treat this sensitive issue. I have a lot to say about how I believe abortions can be reduced, and I want to talk about it more one day if you’re comfortable with that, but I will leave my thoughts for the present at this as I wish to focus on where we do share common ground: we agree that the causes of abortion – poverty, rape culture, domestic
                  violence, etc – should be dealt with or at least seriously reduced, plus both of us believe contraception should be promoted far and wide. IMO science and reason are the best way to handle this controversy in society, not bombs and death threats of abortion practitioners.

                  I am not a moderator here. However, I care about the fellow commenters not being banned or deleted, and deeply value their contributions, which is why I will send them comments letting them know if and when they’re stepping over a line. The reason I told you about people versus actions was that I did not want the mods censoring your comments.

                  Although I have no problem resuming discussion of this topic with you if you change your mind, I respect the fact you have no desire to discuss this for the present as I understand that discussing abortion is not for everyone. However, you have made me so happy for such a brief period of time that I strongly desire to talk about topics we *do* agree on when we both feel comfortable
                  doing so, if that is all right with you. Would you mind if we move our
                  conversation over to Love Joy Feminism where we can keep discussing that rape culture article that you commented on yesterday, because it would mean so much to me if you could do that for me and also because I find you to have a very insightful perspective on many topics. Also if you want to drop by on The
                  Friendly Atheist (which is not prolife BTW) I will be happy to talk when I see you :)

                • Guest

                  Yeah. Even if all that garbage were true, that comparison is still a big slap in the face to victims of actual terrorist movements. You should be ashamed.

                  • Crystal

                    I’m open-minded. I know some prolifers would like nothing more than to execute abortion practitioners and drive them into the ground. However, there are others who work peacefully to change laws. Most grassroots at least, and I think some of the leaders too, seek to save life rather than terrorise people. You and I belong in the latter category, and I’m proud to say Josh does as well :)

      • Crystal

        Although I am open to hearing both sides of the issue on anti-abortion terrorism, I do believe the vast majority of grassroots prolifers and a few of the leaders deplore violence against those who do not share their views. So I appreciate your critique.

  • Crystal

    Thank you, Thomas!

    • Thomas

      You’re welcome.

      • Crystal

        I’m glad we sorted out our differences, LOL. Please know I appreciate your stand for unborn persons.

        • Thomas

          The soul is healed by being with children

          ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

          But first they have to be born….

          • Crystal

            Correct :)

            When we deny a life by stifling it, we deny ourselves a chance to be blessed.

          • Crystal

            That is so gross; I’ve always hated these baby-jokes.

  • IrrationalHumanBeing

    Margaret Sanger was a white female feminist nurse. She lived from 1922 to 1966. Sanger wanted to help women control (regulate) their reproductive body. So she created Planned Parenthood. She challenged a religious and secular patriarchy, was even divorced in jailed for her gender blasphemy, during a time in American culture where females were supposed to know “their place” in relationship to males.

    Prior to Sanger’s feminist leadership, procreation was unregulated, per the patriarchy dictates of The Roman Catholic Church and Secular Patriarchy. Even though women have always had creative ways to regulate procreation, Sanger’s creation of Abortion (PP) change the power relations and gender dynamics between women and men FOREVER.

    How do we know this, because with the creation of PP/Abortion also emerged the Right-To-Life (Pro Life) Movement. Sanger was a product of her time. Her intentions were good for women. But like most whites (male and female) back then, she acted-out her own status quo class-bigotry, race-bigotry, and internalized-sexism. Similarly, PLAs during Sanger’s time and even today acts-out their ISMs.

    If you haven’t seen the below Sanger interview, and you can stop laughing at how institutionalized smoking was in our society, then speculate on what Sanger would say about the modern abortion issue today and the disclaimer of this PLA article … that the PLM isn’t responsible, which isn’t the same as legally co-culpable, for any citizen whom articulates and identifies with our anti-abortion-politics but then commits domestic terrorism:

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in7IUzjN3pY

    Note, many PLAs have tried to use Sanger’s ISMs (especially as it relates to Black Americans) to discredit today’s PP (and abortion), as if the contemporary head of PP Cecile Richards advocates eugenics or any hate-group doctrine and politics.

    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_pro-life_movement

    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecile_Richards

  • Earlier I said let’s suppose that the CMP had misrepresented Planned Parenthood as having broken laws, and asked:

    “You have said that violence was (or would have been, if Dear in fact
    became violent for that reason) a completely unreasonable response to
    PP’s being denounced as criminal. So apparently you would argue that
    even having falsely branded PP as criminal (when it was not) would not
    make the CMP culpable — because even if PP is criminal, violence would
    be a completely unreasonable response. Have I understood you correctly?”

    Two weeks later, this occurs to me: I think that a person has some culpability even for an unreasonable response to what they said, if what they said was a lie that increased the chance (however small the chance might be) of the response that took place.

    Probably the laws of some countries would agree with this.

    • Guest

      “Hands up Don’t Shoot” was a lie. I still don’t blame think it’s fair to blame Black Lives Matter activists for the few sympathizers that kill police officers, torch cars, and burn down retirement homes.

      • I wasn’t following that story closely. Exactly what false belief did “Hands up Don’t Shoot” instill in those few sympathizers?

        • Guest
          • That WP article says:

            Another witness . . . heard a man. . . . The man was saying something to the
            effect of, “The police shot my friend and his hands were up.” The
            witness said that “quickly became the narrative on the street, and . . .
            people used it both as an excuse to riot and to create a ‘block party’
            atmosphere.”

            What does “it” refer to? Did people find an excuse to riot because of the
            mere existence of the narrative, or because they sincerely believed the
            narrative? Anyway, though the article doesn’t mention Black Lives Matter itself, I don’t think that Black Lives Matter itself was on the scene at that moment in Ferguson.

            The article also says, it is important for us to note that the initial “Hands up, don’t shoot” chant after Brown’s shooting has evolved into a message that is no
            longer connected solely to the Ferguson event. A series of other fatal
            shootings by police occurred following Brown’s death, and the “Hands up,
            don’t shoot” came to symbolize the need to hold law enforcement
            accountable

            If the use of the slogan cannot reasonably be expected to dupe anyone into believing that Brown actually had his hands up, then I don’t think those who use the slogan are responsible for what anyone hearing it does. But if it may well dupe people, and if those who use it know that Brown didn’t likely have his hands up, and if someone is motivated by being so duped to do something violent, then clearly those who used the slogan helped cause the violence — maybe they only helped slightly, but they helped — and did so knowing they were lying. I think the lying makes them partially responsible. Whether we use the word “blame” would depend on whether we think that the violence was definitely a bad thing in the greater scheme of things, and think that that bad was not offset by some greater good that would justify it.

  • BurtMacklin283

    A little late to the party here, but I felt compelled to post.

    Only one problem here that derails the whole argument. The author and his brother implicitly acknowledge that there ARE circumstances where killing abortion practitioners are not only necessary, but morally justified (which is an inevitable conclusion given the language we use to describe abortion). They even lay out the circumstances necessary (a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed).

    Here’s the problem. Right wing politicians and demagogues are stating exactly that. That Obama is a terrorist or a muslim extremist, that at the end of his term he’s going to usurp control of the government, that he’s a manchurian candidate in league with muslim radicals…The language the Pro Life movement uses the language of war and implied despotism (holocaust, state sanctioned mass murder, etc.) You’ve got politicians, TV personalities, and Pastors stating that this is ‘The End Times,’ that we must take action now, that the great battle between good and evil is at hand.

    So on the one hand you have a movement implying that drastic action is only acceptable in specific circumstances, and on the other you have TV personalities, religious leaders, and politicians all using language and imagery designed to stoke the imaginations of this specific audience into believing that those very circumstances are at hand.

    • IrrationalHumanBeing

      I agree 100% And this politiks is risky when communicated to an unknown audience of citizens and non-citizens one assumes are only good/decent versus also capable of becoming bad and ugly human beings in all the inappropriate non-criminal but especially criminals ways we see. And I’m of the opinion these elite politicians and other pundits know this can happen and don’t care. They want the power of solidarity via their bases and by any means necessary.

    • Guest

      Necessary does not mean sufficient.

      Necessary conditions: a despotic nation, a state of war, when all alternatives have failed.
      Sufficient conditions: [none stated]
      Definitely insufficient: Some street preacher with a cardboard sign saying the world is about to end, or a talk radio host calling the U.S. president a Muslim terrorist.

      • BurtMacklin283

        You are ignoring the disproportionate influence media has on the perception of reality. If you aren’t even going to factor that in, I can’t take your comment seriously.

        • Guest

          Not really. Plenty of media personalities have called Donald Trump a fascist, compared him to Adolf Hitler and Lord Voldemort, and falsely claimed that ISIS is using his speeches to recruit terrorists. George W. Bush’s critics regularly called him a Nazi and said that his administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Idiots that equate the anti-abortion movement with the Taliban are awarded with airtime. You still don’t get “let’s start killing people!” out of that.

          I can’t take your comment seriously.

          Ironic. I’m not the one blaming a lunatic’s violent actions on a peaceful social movement.

  • James

    I support you 100%! It takes guts to face the philosophical rationale of destroying a baby and hold your temper! Personally, I have no time for the defenders of such a repulsive act! Thank God, people like you do!

  • James

    It is one thing to be kind no matter what someone says. We are talking killing here! There is NOTHING wrong with righteous indignation toward defenders of slaughtering the innocent! Jesus made that perfectly clear. Being kind is nice to a point. But shaving that point to much and you end up with nothing and the evidence is obvious..the baby loses because of that mans NONSENSE! Being articulate is great on paper!

    • Crystal

      Okay, James, this is how I see it.

      I try very hard NOT to be nice to the action of abortion (I struggle in this area because of fear of humanity, more than anything). I consider it morally reprehensible and and have gotten into serious trouble for expressing such a sentiment and similar ones to it on more than one occasion.

      However the people need to be reached, and I’m not going to be able to reach them if I start insulting them and using pejorative terms. I’d rather get someone to really think, and reconsider their position by being respectful than put them off by name-calling.

      I’m very much for calling a spade a spade, and I understand there is a balance at the same time. You have every right to your anger, James. You are right, babies are dying. However taking out your anger on the action and the causes of the action rather than ridiculing and name-calling the people is the best way to handle this, IMHO.

      Please read the comment policy before continuing to comment here as I appreciate your input here and don’t want to see you get moderated:

      blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/comment-policy-2

    • This is becoming a fairly common response from pro-lifers to me and other pro-life advocates like me that try to have positive interactions with pro-choice people. This post might help you understand that we’re not telling people to be “too nice:” https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/dont-be-too-nice/

  • I respectfully disagree with the use of the term “pro-abort,” which I think is actually worse than “pro-abortion,” another term I don’t use. “Pro-abort” frankly sounds like a slur to me.

    Some thoughts on “pro-abortion” here: https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/call-anybody-pro-abortion/

    • Thomas

      Hi Mr Brahm. I understand very well the underlying philosophical justification for this position. I think I explained my reasoning for using that descriptor fairly well.

      I’ve been a prolife advocate since I was capable to formulate a belief system: I’ve seen it all, heard it all and experienced the many faces of our opposition that shaped my approach.

      I’m not convinced from my years of interacting with the other camp that reducing ourselves to “turning the other cheek” and appeasement is always the best action to take.

      Do I use this descriptor on purpose? Absolutely but not always. I would like nothing more than to stop using it but fear that only justifies abortion even more and empowers the hard – core prolife opponent. I reserve this descriptor for those that argue through deception and intellectual dishonesty about fetal development and other matters related to our struggle.

      Perhaps I’m wrong on this, as I’ve been wrong many times.

    • Crystal

      I don’t believe the use of the word “pro-abortion” is bad but I try to avoid “pro-abort” when discussing things properly with people (which is much of the time) because the intention is to discuss and persuade rather than turn people away.

  • No Brown M&Ms

    but does not apply the same standard when a conservative group is attacked.

    Well, I’d like to apply the same standard, but how many times has a conservative group been attacked? You have that 1 guy you give as an example. And?

    OK, how about PUBLICLY proclaiming conservatives to be killed? … crickets?
    Oh, there must be an example similar to Christian preachers who were overjoyed that gays got gunned down in Orlando (Rodrigo Jimenez, Pastor Anderson), or who called for governmental extermination of gays (Pastor Anderson) or who called for gays to be put on a desert island to die (Pastor Worley), or who travelled to Africa to help write the “Kill the Gays” legislation (Pastor Lively) or who …. well, you get the idea.

    Countless bombings of clinics, harassment of doctors and patients, shootings. So how many times has a Christian-run equivalent been bombed or shot up?

    I’d like to apply the same standard, but there just hasn’t been any cases to apply it to.

    • Tullia_Ciceronis

      IDK, maybe the BLM inspired Dallas cop killings just a few months ago. Or the BLM motivated cop killings in New York last year. Or the murder of Jim Pouillon. Just googling “abortion protesters run over” brings up dozens of articles and youtube videos showing just that, with pro choice outlets like Jezebel cheering on the violence. Hell I generally support BLM. but if you are gonna blame all pro-lifers for events like the PP shooting, in order to be logically consistent you have to blame all BLMers for the Dallas and New York cop killings.

      • No Brown M&Ms

        The cop killings are certainly not justified, no matter how many times the police are proven to have planted evidence or lied about shooting because they were charged or had their gun stolen (kudos by-stander video and bodycams) nor how many times they roll-up to a 12-year old boy and open fire on him in less than 2 seconds. I agree with you there. Most cops are good cops, and there are even many within the ranks who call out the bad cops.