Pro-life Paralysis

[Cow Poke]

Personally I think that the widespread use of ultrasound technology has had the biggest impact. It makes the argument that the unborn baby is little more than a lump of tissue increasingly untenable

Yeah, that.

[Cow Poke]

... including many here who whine about how selfish the world is.

This "you whine" nonsense really gets old. That somebody opposes something or speaks about it is not the same as "whining", except to those who don't really have a legitimate point. I think anybody who accuses others of "whining" when they state their sincerely held beliefs should be tied to a wagon wheel and horsewhipped until they whine, then stop.

(and, yeah, this would include ME!)

[mossrose]

The problem with the pro-death crowd (like their brethren, or the same ones, the pro-homosexual crowd) is that pro-lifers cause little pings in their consciences by our very presence. They would like us all to go away and never bother them again.

Their arguments are old and tired and there is nothing new for them to debate us with. So they pooh-pooh the recently released videos of more PP horror as "shipping and handling issues" and jokes, and they start to panic and blame us for not adopting enough or not caring enough about the mothers or blah, blah, blah.

Perhaps they have never heard of pregnancy counselling centres that are prolific everywhere that deal with exactly these things. Obviously ALL run by pro-lifers.

Give it up, whag. We aren't going away, and you can't excuse yourself for your moral laxity by passing the buck to us.

[mossrose]

Look what I found! Here's us, doing nothing!


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...740#post224740

[Cow Poke]

Look what I found! Here's us, doing nothing!


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...740#post224740

Yeah, when I get some time, I need to update that story -- really neat stuff happening! Some of the people who went their for abortions give testimonies of being "drawn back" to that place for healing. It's a pretty powerful story.

[Mountain Man]

I'm tired of polarizing abortion discussions that don't acknowledge the ambiguity of this difficult issue. The prolife movement is paralyzed by profound disagreement, laziness, and hypocrisy. Half of it believes that artificial birth control is evil, a good portion of them would enforce rape victims to carry children to term, and a great most of them won't adopt children in foster care who need loving, stable families. Adopting a kid is inconvenient in most cases. It takes commitment and selflessness.

If prolifers were given their way, we'd be overrun with orphans like in Nikolai Ceausescu's Romania. Probirth fetishism is just as sick as death fetishism.

Because of these issues, even the current debate on fetal body parts trading won't gain the pro life movement much ground. They always think they can change the entire debate by overemphasizing one grisly sliver of the problem, such as when partial birth abortion was the big topic. It never works that way.

Oh, I see, so this is that non-argument that says that if people all agree with a particular overarching position but don't walk in lockstep on every single facet of that position then they're all wrong to agree with the overarching position.

Does that about sum it up? This is really just an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy.

Look, even if some people think that artificial birth control is a sin, or they don't run out and adopt every kid they stumble across at the orphanage, it doesn't suddenly make killing the unborn right, and I honestly can't wrap my head around the moral disconnect that is required to reach that conclusion.

[whag]

Look, even if some people think that artificial birth control is a sin, or they don't run out and adopt every kid they stumble across at the orphanage, it doesn't suddenly make killing the unborn right, and I honestly can't wrap my head around the moral disconnect that is required to reach that conclusion.

That's probably because that isn't what I said. You're annoyed because I pointed out that you can't win what you you want with your disorganized approach, and that a total ban would result in carnage still, anyway.

You have the inverse of death fetishism. There are still many unwanted children because you're essentially more probirth than prolife. Seriously, how can half of you believe that artificial birth control is evil? This is a bumbling movement bound to fail.

[Leonhard]

You have the inverse of death fetishism.

Thank you, I needed a good chuckle before going to bed.

Someone post this in the screwball thread and make a t-shirt out of it.

I'm very much turned on by life.

[whag]

Thank you, I needed a good chuckle before going to bed.

Someone post this in the screwball thread and make a t-shirt out of it.

I'm very much turned on by life.

Europeans are typically lusty and sanguine. This doesn't surprise me.

[Darth Executor]

I'm tired of polarizing abortion discussions that don't acknowledge the ambiguity of this difficult issue. The prolife movement is paralyzed by profound disagreement, laziness, and hypocrisy. Half of it believes that artificial birth control is evil, a good portion of them would enforce rape victims to carry children to term, and a great most of them won't adopt children in foster care who need loving, stable families. Adopting a kid is inconvenient in most cases. It takes commitment and selflessness.

If prolifers were given their way, we'd be overrun with orphans like in Nikolai Ceausescu's Romania. Probirth fetishism is just as sick as death fetishism.

Because of these issues, even the current debate on fetal body parts trading won't gain the pro life movement much ground. They always think they can change the entire debate by overemphasizing one grisly sliver of the problem, such as when partial birth abortion was the big topic. It never works that way.

What do kids in foster care have to do with abortion. The people who don't want their baby and who don't want to kill it give it up for adoption, and unlike foster kids there's an actual demand for babies. The kids in foster care are there because their parents couldn't or wouldn't take care of them later in life.

[whag]

What do kids in foster care have to do with abortion. The people who don't want their baby and who don't want to kill it give it up for adoption, and unlike foster kids there's an actual demand for babies. The kids in foster care are there because their parents couldn't or wouldn't take care of them later in life.

The babies up for adoption are there because their parents couldn't or wouldn't take care of them later in life. There's really no difference apart from the difficulty of derailed development in the intervening years between birth and foster age, which your religious knowledge and augmented maturity should be able to sufficiently handle.

How many prolife Christians are there compared to the number of foster children?

[Cow Poke]

How many prolife Christians are there compared to the number of foster children?

So, because there are not enough Christian families to adopt foster children (some of us actually foster children! ) we should just step back and let people murder babies?

[mossrose]

The disconnect in logic is gargantuan.

[whag]

So, because there are not enough Christian families to adopt foster children (some of us actually foster children! ) we should just step back and let people murder babies?

No, rather you should have the smarts to not use that kind of language that has hobbled you for decades and not give your opposition room to point out your lack of principle. Ardent prolifers are in the millions while orphans number the thousands. Do the math.

BTW, I'm not advancing a solely pro choice argument but a popular criticism that extreme conservative prolife groups level at the inactive, largely moderate church.

[whag]

The disconnect in logic is gargantuan.

Says the YEC.