Bad Kitty

None of the pro-life people I associate with demonstrate at clinics due to the generally violent activities that take place there. Also, because we are atheists and agnostics, we are quite turned off by the heavily Christian messages that are represented at such demonstrations. I don't want to be standing with people arguing that abortion is wrong because it is "against the will of God". Nor to I want to stand with people who are anti-sex education or anti-birth control. Also, I just have no desire to hassle people who are exercising what is currently a legal option in the U.S. In fact, I don't want to hassle people at all. I am interested in the definition of personhood and when and how human rights are applied under the law. I am not the only pro-lifer that I know who has this approach.

If you consider the fact that a reasonably large percentage of Americans associate themselves with the phrase "pro-life" as compared with the relatively small number of screaming freaks who stand outside clinics harassing women, I would think it would be obvious that those obnoxious people waving signs do not represent all pro-lifers, or even a majority of pro-lifers.

I assure you that my family members and the couple of friends I know who are pro-life are not "fantasy people". It goes without saying that I am not a "fantasy person" either.

Also, I did just apologize for over-interpreting what you said. I am trying not to let the generally negative opinions expressed in this thread about some pro-lifers make me feel as if my character, and the characters of my family and friends, are being attacked. But I will admit that it is hard as it seems there are few positive comments about any pro-lifers offered as balance (at least by anyone but me). But I will keep trying.

Thanks,

Michelle

cheetah

Not likely, seeing as how yours was the only attempt at satire I have had trouble "getting." The problem is, you didn't make the correct parallel between the two posts to truly satirize it. But, then you are probably not interested in learning about satire on this thread either...
I'm not too concerned about generalizations. This is my opinion (that pro-lifers are hypocritical), supported by my personal experiences and not something I am holding out as a fact. It is a social norm, if not an established fact, that conservatives (who, again, have an established connection to pro-lifers) advocate many items that have detrimental effects for children. Therefore my conclusion is that 1. they should have to raise these children themselves if they don't support abortion, because they have shown, as a group, a lack of support for causes for children and 2. this indicates more care for children in the womb than out of it. You don't like my opinion that pro-lifers saying people should use adoption instead of abortion should have to adopt. I coudn't tell why except that you didn't want your spare room to be converted into a bedroom. If you think there's some reason that this statement isn't hypocritical, you can say it, but my underlying opinion, as always, is that a more practical use of resources is to prevent unwanted pregnancy and raise the standard of living for the already-born. Therefore, being pro-life but not committing resources to these causes (particularly the first), is either stupid and inefficient, or malicious for SOME reason.

Another point, I also wasn't too concerned about your supposedly satirical generalizations. I can recognize when people are making generalizations and when they are making a point. I chose to respond primarily to your point, ignoring your generalizations and only stated that you're right, I am not warm-hearted. Generalizations may be a waste of time in an argument, but if you want to keep it on track, and debate real points, I would suggest picking out the real points over the emotions, tirades, anecdotal stories, etc. Those add ambience. Frankly I think this thread is all ambience. Unless someone can *prove* the mindset of all pro-lifers this is ALL specualtion and anecdotal evidence. You and the pro-lifers you know do not feel that way. The pro-lifers Biff has met are that way. That's all that can be said. You can't change the experiences we have all had with pro-lifers, but I'm sure your input on being a "different" kind of pro-lifer is appreciated.

Of course you're not. However, this thread is talking about opinions on pro-life opinions on abortion. Why don't you want to talk about what you think pro-lifers think will happen if we undervalue children, which may speak directly to the topic of why pro-lifers are anti-choice? I put forth some ideas on what they are doing NOW to undervalue children (as a way of showing that it is not ultimately undervaluing childen that they are worried about) and you dismiss it and offer only ideas that pro-choicers do undervalue children with no consequences of those thoughts or actions. What's to be worried about if there are no consequences?

It seems more that you are concerned with dismissing arguments you don't want to discuss as geenralizations, than addressing points that speak to the topic of this thread. You're on a mission to tell people that they are all wrong about pro-lifers simply because of the existence of one different pro-lifer: yourself. I'll tell, though, that generalizations are helpful, and don't make an argument wrong just because they are used. Humans have evolved to use generalizations because they are helpful. And after all, everyone is so unique, every motivations is unique, how can we assimilate any information or categorize anything without soem generalizations? We need to use generalizations with a healthy dose of acknowledging unique cases. Anyway, my point is, pointing out generalizations is not pointing out that something is wrong.

Bad Kitty

If you say so. I don't really care if my writing style is not to your taste.

At least not when they are your own. A simple yes or no answer here would have sufficed.

Thank you for clarifying that your statements aren't fact. Neither are many of mine, they are both just opinion.

I'm not a conservative so I can't really address your concerns about the conservative political agenda. My interest in the subject of abortion lies elsewhere.

Well, Cheetah, I think the statement is almost too stupid to take seriously. But let's take it to its logical conclusion: just how many children should I adopt as a person who believes that adoption is a reasonable alternative to abortion in some cases? Let me point out that I have in fact witnessed an adoption that took place in lieu of an abortion, and it worked out well for all concerned. Are you saying this is somehow wrong and not a reasonable option? Because I have seen objective evidence otherwise. If you are somehow inferring that I think adoption would solve the entire issue, then you are incorrect. Using adoption as an alternative to abortion is just one concept in a whole slew of things that would need to change in society in order to phase out abortion.

As I've stated previously, I do commit resources to causes that I feel are appropriate to my beliefs on the issue.

Because I'm more comfortable speaking about what *I* as a pro-lifer think and what my motivations are, and I'm less comfortable representing, perhaps poorly, other pro-life opinions. As I said, I mentioned that particular concept (under valuation) as an example of a concern that had nothing to do with "image". This particular opinion is held by my mother, who sees a pervasive under valuation of children in society; she believes the number of abortions worldwide, women who have repeat abortions, babies dumped in trash cans and dumpsters or murdered outright, babies subjected to terrible or non-existent prenatal care; babies born addicted to drugs, etc. are all interlocking issues. This is her opinion, as best as I can briefly represent it. But I'm not really interested in discussing HER opinions. It is all I can handle to discuss MY opinions.

Who is "they" in your statement? Conservatives? If so, as I said, I'm not a conservative and so can't offer insight into this topic. I'm just not interested in discussing the failures of conservative social programs.

Thank you.

I'm not on any mission. I'm on a discussion board representing MY opinion and you know, �discussing�. I've have repeatedly stated that some pro-lifers are idiots. I have repeatedly stated that some pro-lifers are misguided. Is that not enough to prove to you that I don�t think all pro-lifers are just like me? Should I somehow minimize my own pro-life experiences to fit better with the other opinions on this thread?

True. For instance, generally the pro-abortion people I meet are so militant and rigid about their ideas that they find it difficult to address the philosophical and ethical questions behind the entire issue without getting offensive. They generally want to pigeonhole all pro-lifers as controlling, knee-jerk Christians and are often unwilling consider any ideas that are contrary to this picture.

Michelle

cheetah

False. See what I said later about your own generalizations.

cheetah

Wow. That's an experience I have never heard before from a pro-lifer. It's strange that the "stereotypes" about pro-lifers are so common, but the generalization you've made above about pro-choicers are not.

cheetah

Of course, I am just curious as to how you or any pro-lifer would find any cause more appropriate to your belief than committing resources to preventing unwanted pregnancies. Maybe not your per se, because you aren't against sex ed. In any case, research and comparisons to other countries shows that that would be an effective way to reduce abortions and the disconnect between that evidence and people's actions has me bewildered.

But, I know you don't want to talk about other people's motivations or opinions. However, I would point out that I don't think anyone here was arguing your particular motivation or opinion, prior or after your arrival on the thread. They were using a group of pro-lifers they know or know of, you announced your different opinion, in addition to the fact that there are also other different opinions on the board. So, if you don't want to discuss other people's motivations and nobody is arguing with you about your own motivation, what's left to discuss?

Bad Kitty

Wow. The experience I described is pretty common among the moderate pro-lifers I know. I'm surprised it comes as a shock to you.

Michelle

Bad Kitty

Your point is? I've already said my main focus IS preventing unwanted pregancies. In fact, responsible sexual practices (including the availability and PROPER use of birth control) are KEY in my opinion.

AHA! We agree on something! It bewilders me as well. I think that religion is what fucks that up. As has been pointed out on this thread, many pro-lifers base their beliefs on religion, and with that comes a whole crapload of worthless rules about sex.

I'm willing to discuss all sorts of opinions, though as I said, I'm LESS comfortable discussing opinions that aren't my own -- particularly on such a volatile thread and in such hostile waters. Most people here are making statements based on their OWN experience. So am I.

As for "announcing" that I, and others I know, don't fit into the descriptions of pro-lifers that were being offered, I just thought it might be interesting to provide a counterpoint from an actual pro-lifer. I'm sorry if you think that was inappropriate or dull.

Michelle

Edited for grammar and typo

cheetah

I grew up in a very conservative, pro-life area and never experienced it from the pro-lifers I know. I thought I had heard it all. I guess they're a different breed in FL....

cheetah

Did you purposely leave out the part of my quote where I said:

???