Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 79

Thread: Pro-Life Rhetoric and violence

  1. #1

    Default Pro-Life Rhetoric and violence

    Several weeks ago Robert Dear attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado. Three people were shot to death, including a police officer, and nine other people were injured. From all the stories, he appears to have been a very troubled, disturbed individual. According to Planned Parenthood, he had expressed his hostility to abortion and to Planned Parenthood in particular..

    http://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/1...-mass-shooting

    What is known is that Planned Parenthood was targeted by four arson attacks in the last few months alone, and between 1977 and 2012 there were 6,550 violent attacks against abortion clinics in the US and Canada, including murder, arson and death threats.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2366316/a-...ed-parenthood/

    Contrary to the pro-life rhetoric, most of Planned Parenthood's work has little to do with abortion, dealing more frequently with women who require basic help with female health issues. The agency offers a wide spectrum of assistance and referrals, of which abortion may be one alternative after extensive counselling. Abortion is never the first option, however it does remain an option. I've always found it unfortunate that pro-life advocates are often the ones who are opposed to any form of medical care, daycare, or housing subsidies, imposing their anti-abortion views on women and leaving them to live their lives in poverty.

    Nobody wants to see an abortion, but most people understand the need for choice.. If we really wanted to reduce abortion rates without going back to coat hanger abortions in a back alley, we would strive towards universal access to contraceptives, modern sex education in the schools, empowering women with employment, housing, and daycare options, and reducing poverty. If a woman had these resources, she would face a less bleak future and may choose to keep a child. In short, the answers are more complex than just being pro-choice of pro-life. It's about giving a woman hope to raise a child in a positive future.

    The leading groups who oppose abortion simply want to criminalize the act of abortion and shut own clinics, while also opposing contraception and sex education (except preaching abstinence).

    The other problem is the incendiary language used by anti-abortion groups. I was describing recently in a thread the increasing usage of graphic images of bloody, aborted foetuses, and language with terminology of 'baby killers' or comparing an abortion clinic to Auschwitz. There are others such as 'baby slaughter' 'genocide, and ironically 'mass murder.'

    My own view is that we need to turn down the volume on the histrionics and the rhetoric. The pro-life lobby needs to look at the long term welfare of the foetus after it leaves the womb, and to show compassion to the mother by advocating for resources to ensure a sustainable life, rather than just abandon her after coercing her into keeping the child. Otherwise, this violence will simply continue.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by Starrunner; 10-Dec-2015 at 12:41.

  2. #2

    Default

    I've always advocated respect for the procreative act and process. Including keeping your pants on unless you really mean it.

  3. #3

    Default

    Thoughts.., it's an old debate and isn't going anywhere any time soon. The foundation under which both pro and anti arguments are built are mostly incompatible, and with such little common ground it's always just gonna be a shouting match. As with all shouting matches, it's usually gonna devolve into hyperbole and rhetoric pretty quickly, and with a large enough group, the real die-hards are going to get tired of that and go further.

    Nothing you can do about it really. Personally as an male athiest I've not got a strong opinion nor am really impacted one way or the other.

  4. #4

    Default

    As a pro-life liberal I favor greatly expanding sex education so 11 year olds know at least as much about sex as adults do, ending poverty by reversing the decades long redistribution of wealth, and increasing welfare when needed to insure no one in the country goes without decent shelter and adequate food and medical care.

  5. #5

    Default

    Let me get this straight... A guy who was pro-LIFE killed people in an act of terrorism. That's got to be the very definition of irony. And yet another demonstration of the endless problems caused by liberal gun ownership.

    Anyway, the whole "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" binary identity seems to be particularly American (and maybe Canadian too?). I think nearly everyone here would agree that abortions should be permitted in at least some cases. Obviously no one (in their right and well-informed mind) would choose an abortion over contraceptives, or even the "morning after pill".

    One thing I've never understood is how "pro lifers" can eat meat? I presume many do. If they're so worried about harming an undeveloped foetus, how can they harm fully developed live animals (much less murder fully developed humans)?

    I thought it was interesting that the UN Human Rights Committee recently found that Ireland's abortion laws violate human rights and the country's international obligations.

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...h-human-rights
    https://www.amnesty.ie/news/ireland-...p-un-criticism

  6. #6

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    One thing I've never understood is how "pro lifers" can eat meat? I presume many do. If they're so worried about harming an undeveloped foetus, how can they harm fully developed live animals (much less murder fully developed humans)?
    You do realize that animals and humans are different. Or are you just purposely trying to be obtuse?


    The pro-life/pro-choice argument comes down to when life begins. If it begins at conception, abortion is wrong. If it begins at birth, then it is okay. It really is an absolute if that unknown question would be answered. When does life begin?

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by WriteAndLeft View Post
    You do realize that animals and humans are different. Or are you just purposely trying to be obtuse?


    The pro-life/pro-choice argument comes down to when life begins. If it begins at conception, abortion is wrong. If it begins at birth, then it is okay. It really is an absolute if that unknown question would be answered. When does life begin?
    Somewhere in between. Or more specifically, sentience occurs somewhere in between. Obviously both egg and sperm are living tissue, but so is a bacterium. For me, the critical point is the moment that a developing foetus forms sufficient neural connections to become self-aware, though I won't claim to know when that is. As far as British law is concerned, the limit is 24 weeks, though that is based mostly on birth survival rate.

    I can't help thinking that the extreme controversy over abortion in the US results from the fact that it has become a constitutional issue, rather than a medical technocratic one, as it seems to be most other places.

  8. #8

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by tiny View Post
    Let me get this straight... A guy who was pro-LIFE killed people in an act of terrorism. That's got to be the very definition of irony. And yet another demonstration of the endless problems caused by liberal gun ownership.
    Bearing in mind that probably 10 to 100 times more lives were ended that same day in that establishment by the proprietors.

  9. #9

    Default

    At the very least, Mr Dear and many of his less-demonstrative fellows believe it is moral to kill in order to save lives. I'm not sure that "10 to 100 times more lives were ended" in any Planned Parenthood facility on a given day, but Maxx' point of view - for which I have respect - indicates to me that the right-to-life advocates feel violence is in their own best interest.

    As a liberal, pro-choice person, that befuddles me ... compounded by the fact that most pro-life folks also seem to advocate limited or reduced government. I'm equally unsure how one can fervently oppose governmental interference in private lives while at the same time claiming the right to dictate what other people can and cannot do.

  10. #10

    Default

    Trouble is, the pro-life movement loves the fetus, but refuses to support or help disabled children and adults.

Similar Threads

  1. When to step in - domestic violence
    By MolicareMan in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 16-Jun-2014, 17:21
  2. Sports and violence
    By twtw in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21-Dec-2011, 23:01
  3. Republican response to rhetoric question
    By Coyote_Howl in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 18-Jan-2011, 07:31
  4. Sensless Violence
    By Thatperson in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-Jan-2011, 02:28

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.