Bad Kitty

I wasn't generalizing. Of ALL of the pro-abortion posts that replied in the thread, I didn't remember a single non-offensive motivation postulated. I was referring to this thread, not the world in general.

Though on review, I see I did err in this. There were a couple of early posts saying that the motivation could be a difference of opinion on what constitutes life. I was only thinking of the later posts when I wrote this, and it did sadden me that there seemed to be such a negative overall opinion of people who were pro-life.

Excuses aside, I did generalize. My bad.

Probably there are some who believe this. The idea of a "soul" seems very popular in our general culture -- even with very weak theists of generally unexamined faith. As an atheist, I don't not fall into this category however. I'm not interested in "ensoulment", I'm interested in personhood under the law and how that is defined and applied.

Responible parethood and responsible sexual practices are certainly key, in my opinion. But I'm just not personally convinced of the ethics of denying a a fetus the right to live. So I will agree to disagree on this one.

Michelle

cheetah

I fail to see your point in doing so. Was it just to prove you can come up with those broad generalizations? They held no parallel to the statements I made, so I cannot assume you were trying to show them to be false. In fact, you ended up being correct in that I don't make these decisions/opinions with my emotions!

Also, it is more appropriate for you to change someone's quote by using ellipses, rather than saying blah blah blah. It is inappropriate for you to change my quote to insert words I didn't use. if you want to cut short some text you do not intend to use or respond to, use ellipses. If you want to insinuate that what i am saying is repetitive or "in one ear out the other" or any number of other things, you ought to use the blah blah blah in your own words, not mine. Just a little quoting etiquette!

winstonjen

When I said that pro-lifers only care about being seen as morally correct, one Christian fundy took offence and said, "Why must you resort to insulting other users [How? - Ed]? Just because they oppose it doesn't mean they care about being seen as 'morally correct' - they think that it would be dangerous fpr society's morals if it is legalised."

Am I the only one who doesn't see a difference between the two reasons he mentioned?

Bad Kitty

Color me not shocked, given that you can't recognize the broad generalizations you made here:

Just because I displayed bad manners doesn't make my opinion invalid. Proper etiquette does not a successful argument make.

Bad Kitty

Well, looking in the mind of a fundy is never easy, but I do see a difference.
[list=1][*]Your statement gives the movitivation of a pro-lifer as, "only care about being seen as morally correct". This infers that it really isn't the abortion issue they care about, it is ONLY their image and how they are perceived that they care about. This is probably pretty insulting to someone who truly cares about the actual issue and it's possible impact on society (like the undervaluation of children and life in general).
[*] His statement postulates the motivation of a pro-lifer as actual care for and worrying about society (and its morals). In other words, his assumed motivation is actually caring about society, versus just wanting to be seen as a moral person himself.
[/list=1]

I believe there are pro-lifers who fall into both categories.

Biff the unclean

I have yet to meet an anti-choicer who did not fall into catagory 1. I don't know why you would call this insulting. It certainly isn't flattering but is is an accurate description.
I don't really think the term "pro-life" holds with this group if you look past their verbal smoke screen.

Bad Kitty

Welcome to the wide world of generalizations, where all pro-lifers are interested only in their image. You know the over 45% of Americans who identify themselves as �pro-life� personally, do you? And they are all just image-conscious hypocrites, are they?

edited for poor typing.

cheetah

I guess you just did a poor job of satirizing.

I don't believe I insinuated your argument failed because of poor etiquette. As an aside, or postscript to the main discussion, I simply reminded you that it was inappropriate.

Re: your response to Biff, you attribute him saying something about all pro-lifers that he quite clearly said about any of the ones he has met. Perhaps it is recognizing those nuances that would help make your argument better. I did say I believed all pro-lifers who claim adoption is a better option should have to adopt those children to avoid hypocrisy. Biff said all the pro-lifers he has met are concerned about their image more than about the issue.

On another note, why and by whom are we in danger of undervaluing children? I haven't seen the imminent threat of this at all. If so, I have only seen it by conservative forces that often encourage processes that would selectively give some benefits over others, and decrease things like Head Start and health care. I shouldn't need to state that it is also more common for pro-lifers to be conservative; another instance of these people caring more about the baby in the womb than out of it.

Biff the unclean

Welcome to the wide world of generalizations, where all pro-lifers are interested only in their image. You know the over 45% of Americans who identify themselves as "pro-life" personally, do you? And they are all just image-conscious hypocrites, are they?
It's strange that none of these oh so wonderful & caring "anti-choice" people you fantasize about never show themselves at the clinics. They must be too busy taking unwed mothers into their homes to come out.
The ones I have met (which in your eagerness to defame you neglected to notice was what I specifically said) are the ones who protest at the clinics. They claim to be wonderful folks too. They stand around for hours congratulating each other on being so nice. They have even invited me to admire them for their goodness. Yet each time a woman showed up, hoping to use the clinic, they turned into a pack of animals whose savagery would embarrass African wild dogs.

Bad Kitty

Perhaps you just did a poor job comprehending.

But have you no comment on your own generalizations? You didn't use the words "some pro-lifers" or "the pro-lifers I've met" in your statements. So are these generalizations or not?

Here is your statement:

So, are these generalizations or not?

In regards to my comments to Biff:

I apologize Biff, you clearly meant only the pro-lifers <b>you've met</b>, as Cheetah has pointed out. I shouldn't have interpreted your comments as applying beyond that exact set of people and tried to defend the character of other pro-filers. I'm sure you weren't implying that ALL pro-lifers have the same poor characters of all the ones you've met.

I was providing an example of real a pro-life opinion (based on pro-lifers I know) that has nothing to do with worrying about image and everything to do with worries about how abortion affects society.

Some pro-lifers believe that some pro-abortion people place little value on children still in the womb, i.e., undervaluing children. Some pro-lifers feel that some pro-abortion people value their own convenience and sexual freedom over the lives of babies. Some pro-lifers feel this disregard of human life could have unwanted affects on society. Of course, many (if not all? ) pro-abortion folks would argue that a fetus isn't a child; which is not the opinion of some pro-lifers.

I'm not really interested in generalizations about conservative politics, which could be a whole other thread.

Thanks,

Michelle