Legality

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320388058' post='2331171']


Well, perhaps you might have something there except that it would depend on a few other specifics, such as... was it already a law that was changed incorrectly? [/quote]
That was back in the 70s. Most of the fertile population wouldn't have even thought about sex (or been alive) back then.


[quote]
There is no question ofgoing slow because people need to become adjusted to a new law - it is a matter of restoring what was correct in the first place back to what it should be!
[/quote]

So, just laws over effective ones (if the situation makes full restrictiveness less effective)? I'm asking if outlawing "q" completely is needed immediately or if it's advisable to make it a process.

Edited November 4, 2011 by musturde

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320389298' post='2331172']
That was back in the 70s. Most of the fertile population wouldn't have even thought about sex (or been alive) back then.




So, just laws over effective ones (if the situation makes full restrictiveness less effective)? I'm asking if outlawing "q" completely is needed immediately or if it's advisable to make it a process.
[/quote]


As for the first point - I don't see what that has to do with it.

As for the second point, immoral acts should always be illegal in my opinion. And if it is immoral, then it should be done immediately, not as a process. My opinion again.

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320389994' post='2331174']


As for the first point - I don't see what that has to do with it.[/quote]
I apologize, I thought you meant that the ban on abortion was already put to law at some point so people were already accustomed to it.

[quote]
if it is immoral, then it should be done immediately, not as a process. My opinion again.
[/quote]
Thank you. i appreciate the input.

[quote]As for the second point, immoral acts should always be illegal in my opinion. [/quote]
Should all immoral acts be illegal? If not, where do you think the line should be drawn?

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320391051' post='2331176']
I apologize, I thought you meant that the ban on abortion was already put to law at some point so people were already accustomed to it.
[/quote]

I'm still not sure what you mean. I did mean that abortion has been illegal through the centuries but was only changed last century so it's not as if it is an age old custom that needs to be slowly evolved over time.

[quote] Thank you. i appreciate the input. [/quote] You're welcome. Opinions are just that - nothing more or less.


[quote] Should all immoral acts be illegal? If not, where do you think the line should be drawn?
[/quote]

Give me some examples of immoral acts that should not be illegal - otherwise I am not sure where you draw the line. As far as I can tell, God has made it pretty clear what He considers illegal in His eyes - He even had it written down so we don't forget it. And although Jesus showed us that our God is merciful, He also showed that He is just as well. He tells us what is wrong, and asks us to obey Him, but then also knows we are weak and forgives us if we repent and try to make amends. But Jesus doesn't say that we can do whatever we want and get away with it - He gave examples of faithless servants and being thrown out of the banquet and teeth gnashing etc... justice for evil doing. But then He tells us heaven rejoices at the repentent sinner.... so mercy as well.

So if we make what is immoral, also illegal, aren't we really helping those who don't know any better not to sin against God? There will always be those who break the secular law as well as God's law, but there are also people who keep a law simply because it is a law, not because they understand it - so they are being helped spiritually without even understanding it! One of my friend's aunties used to always say "A rule is a rule, and a law is a law." because that's how she lived her life - by the rules. So even if she thought abortion was okay - if it was illegal, there's no way she would do it. That's one anecdote, but I doubt she is the only one who thinks this way. for those who have no moral law, it would be good if the secular law could reflect God's law.

[rkwright]

Laws about fundamental rights should not be so utilitarian in nature. The baby's right to life, and the state's responsibility to protect life, does not depend on how many people choose to violate that right.

Don't forget the victim in this crime. It is offensive to tell the vicitim, the baby, that what happened to you is not a crime because it would have happened anyways.

As to whether all immoral things should also be illegal - that is another debate completely. Aborition is in a different class because it involves the most basic fundamental right - the right to life. While we can debate whether the state has the right to regulate all immoral acts (for example alcohol abuse, prostitution, adultery), there is no question that the state at its core has a duty protect the lives of its citizens.

[SuscipeMeDomine]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320109165' post='2329582']It is more important to make abortion illegal first. It is an immoral act and should not be legalised. Then we need to change the populations' view on abortion. Yes, the State's official stance is very important because more people obey laws they don't like than disobey them.[/quote]

I think that people need to be convinced something is wrong before they will promote laws banning the act.

Suppose I wanted to enact a law banning children from riding bicycles. Do you think I would have any hope of getting such a law passed? No, because people don't see anything wrong with children riding bikes.

I don't think there's much hope of enacting laws that would ban abortions unless people are first convinced that abortion is wrong. If they see it simply as removing some unwanted tissue, it's no more wrong to them than removing an appendix, and no one is trying to ban appendectomies.

First people's hearts need to change, then the laws will change.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320372403' post='2331097']
Thank you, this is the response I wanted.



*sigh* I mentioned from the beginning that this was not meant to be realistic. I created three different scenarios but people were paying too much attention to the abortion example instead of the question I was trying to ask from it. I tried to defend this viewpoint to help people think in this mindset. I'm not advocating a pro-choice stance.


Interesting point. So the intention of the law is more important than its consequences?[/quote]
The justice of the law is of paramount importance. A law which explicitly denies the most fundamental right to life of the most vulnerable persons is the ultimate in injustice.
If the law does not protect the right to life of helpless innocent persons, it has failed in its most basic and fundamental purpose.

(I guess I - along with the Church - take the very un-pc and uncool stance that the law should be about right and wrong, rather than about opinion polls.)


[quote]I brought up abortion was because I figured this would be a topic everyone would be familiar with. I had other examples of laws that had negative consequences but they weren't very relevant to Catholic culture. Maybe the legalization of marijuana would be a better example (though it's a little too late now. I think the "law x" and "q" example I had above is what I should have started the off with).[/quote]
Yes abortion is a bad example to use. While I certainly don't approve of smoking marijuana, it doesn't belong in the same category as marijuana. Smoking pot does not directly and deliberately kill an innocent human being. Abortion does.

Whether or not the law gives protection to all innocent human life is a very serious issue.

[quote]The reason why I said abortion, rape and murder can't be compared to each other is because it does not help win pro-choice people to the pro-life side. Most people don't agree with rape or murder. The problem we have (and pro-choicers do this as well) is that we get too emotionally caught up in the debate and end up criticizing those who oppose us. It's not Christian at all. Calling someone Hitler or a rapist is not going to win him or her over to our side. The only people we can reach by dropping "rape", "holocaust", and "murder" in our discussions of abortion are people who already agree with us.[/quote]
Abortion can very legitimately be compared to murder because abortion[i][b] is[/b][/i] murder. It is the deliberate taking of an innocent human, and that is the very reason we are so opposed to it, and want it outlawed. People can only be won fully to the pro-life side when they realize this truth. And the deliberate killing of a baby is at least as evil as rape, though both are vile and despicable acts of violence.
Yes, there are effective and ineffective ways of teaching this truth, and not every method is appropriate for every circumstance, but the truth about abortion can and is spoken in charity. But if we refuse to call the evil of abortion for what it is - murder of the innocent - then we are being neither effective nor honest. If we insist on pussyfooting around this central truth, talking as though abortion is really not that bad, and nothing more than a not-so-great personal choice, then there is little reason to want to get rid of this evil nor for others to oppose it. Refusing to call evil by its true name is not truly Christian.

While nobody mentioned Hitler here, since you brought him up, this brings up an interesting issue: If you were a German in the Nazi era who was opposed to Hitler and was aware of the Jewish Holocaust, and were trying to win supporters of Hitler to your side, would you refuse to call out the Nazis' murderous actions for what they really were, and expose the murderous evil of the "Final Solution," or would you insist on avoiding being straightforward about these issues for fear of upsetting people and turning them away? Would you refuse any criticism of the Nazis as "not Christian"?
(And before everyone starts screaming "Godwin's Law," try giving this scenario some serious thought. Is it wrong to call out evil for what it is and inform people of it? Evil in this world is hardly confined to a long-dead Austrian guy with a dorky little mustache.)

Edited November 4, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='SuscipeMeDomine' timestamp='1320423238' post='2331277']

I think that people need to be convinced something is wrong before they will promote laws banning the act.

Suppose I wanted to enact a law banning children from riding bicycles. Do you think I would have any hope of getting such a law passed? No, because people don't see anything wrong with children riding bikes.

I don't think there's much hope of enacting laws that would ban abortions unless people are first convinced that abortion is wrong. If they see it simply as removing some unwanted tissue, it's no more wrong to them than removing an appendix, and no one is trying to ban appendectomies.

First people's hearts need to change, then the laws will change.
[/quote]
We need to both support justice in the law and educate people as to why abortion is so evil. The fact that we are lobbying for laws against abortion draws attention to the issue, and provides an opportunity to explain why we are so opposed to this act.

Those in the civil rights movement worked against opposition to change hearts and minds, and also at the same time fight unjust laws.

We may not be immediately successful, but we should do what we can to vote pro-life and support pro-life legislation.

Again, it's not and either/or issue, but both/and.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1320420485' post='2331255']
Abortion is in a different class because it involves the most basic fundamental right - the right to life. While we can debate whether the state has the right to regulate all immoral acts (for example alcohol abuse, prostitution, adultery), there is no question that the state at its core has a duty protect the lives of its citizens.
[/quote]
Amen, amen, amen!

[musturde]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1320392380' post='2331178']

I'm still not sure what you mean. I did mean that abortion has been illegal through the centuries but was only changed last century so it's not as if it is an age old custom that needs to be slowly evolved over time. [/quote]
Ah, I see what you mean now! We were talking about different things. I meant that people are not accustomed to abortion being illegal now. The fact that abortion was illegal in early Christian times is relevant to Christians but may not apply as well to an atheist(in fact, it's harder to argue the pro-life stance to non-religious people altogether).

[quote]
You're welcome. Opinions are just that - nothing more or less.[/quote]
True, but they matter a lot. I'm glad people are participating.



[quote]Give me some examples of immoral acts that should not be illegal - otherwise I am not sure where you draw the line.[/quote]
This is a very interesting topic. I'll provide just one example, since I'm sure we could dedicated a thread to this discussion. Though saying God's name in vain is immoral, I don't think most Catholics would think this should be illegal.

[quote]As far as I can tell, God has made it pretty clear what He considers illegal in His eyes - He even had it written down so we don't forget it.[/quote]
Ah, I see. So, since abortion is murder, it should be banned automatically. How about another crime though? Let's say we want to ban marijuana (since intoxication is not mentioned in the 10 commandments).
[quote]So if we make what is immoral, also illegal, aren't we really helping those who don't know any better not to sin against God? There will always be those who break the secular law as well as God's law, but there are also people who keep a law simply because it is a law, not because they understand it - so they are being helped spiritually without even understanding it! One of my friend's aunties used to always say "A rule is a rule, and a law is a law." because that's how she lived her life - by the rules. So even if she thought abortion was okay - if it was illegal, there's no way she would do it. That's one anecdote, but I doubt she is the only one who thinks this way. for those who have no moral law, it would be good if the secular law could reflect God's law.
[/quote]
I agree with this. I also follow some laws, though I disagree with them. However, I believe this can only be taken so far. If you believe a law is unfair, for example, wouldn't you protest it? If the law didn't allow you to wear crosses in public, would it be wrong for you to rebel and wear one?

[musturde]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1320420485' post='2331255']
Laws about fundamental rights should not be so utilitarian in nature.[/quote]
Ah, that's very true! How would you answer this question if it was for something considered immoral by the Church but much less significant (like marijuana or other lower grade drugs)?
[quote]
The baby's right to life, and the state's responsibility to protect life, does not depend on how many people choose to violate that right.

Don't forget the victim in this crime. It is offensive to tell the vicitim, the baby, that what happened to you is not a crime because it would have happened anyways. [/quote]
That's true. I'm trying to gauge whether you would prefer a tactic of slowly restricting abortion while convincing the populace that this act is immoral or if you believed that outlawing abortion immediately would be the better option. I'm also curious to find whether the state's actual position on this issue matters more than the results of its stance (as in, if you would prefer the immediate full restriction even if it was less effective).

[quote]
As to whether all immoral things should also be illegal - that is another debate completely. Aborition is in a different class because it involves the most basic fundamental right - the right to life. While we can debate whether the state has the right to regulate all immoral acts (for example alcohol abuse, prostitution, adultery), there is no question that the state at its core has a duty protect the lives of its citizens.
[/quote]
Indeed, the fundamental rights are key.

[musturde]

[quote name='SuscipeMeDomine' timestamp='1320423238' post='2331277']

I think that people need to be convinced something is wrong before they will promote laws banning the act.

Suppose I wanted to enact a law banning children from riding bicycles. Do you think I would have any hope of getting such a law passed? No, because people don't see anything wrong with children riding bikes. [/quote]
This is very true. If something seems ridiculous, people will resist the law. However, there are good examples and counterexamples to this point.

[quote]I don't think there's much hope of enacting laws that would ban abortions unless people are first convinced that abortion is wrong. If they see it simply as removing some unwanted tissue, it's no more wrong to them than removing an appendix, and no one is trying to ban appendectomies.[/quote]
This is a very good point. Though this is a weak example, one could look at the laws against slavery in the same way. Even though many southerners needed the man labor and believed black people were inferior, slavery was still gone (or mostly gone) after it was outlawed.

[quote]
First people's hearts need to change, then the laws will change.
[/quote]
Thank you. I knew SOMEONE had to believe this. I'm not completely one way or the other (though I was leaning in favor of this opinion to push buttons and get a discussion going).

[musturde]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1320428840' post='2331300']
The justice of the law is of paramount importance. A law which explicitly denies the most fundamental right to life of the most vulnerable persons is the ultimate in injustice.
If the law does not protect the right to life of helpless innocent persons, it has failed in its most basic and fundamental purpose.

(I guess I - along with the Church - take the very un-pc and uncool stance that the law should be about right and wrong, rather than about opinion polls.) [/quote]
I apologize If I'm not very clear but I'll try to rephrase my question again. Let's say the government wants to ban the prescription drug Adderall (which is a million times worse than many illegal drugs). Let's say the Church agreed that Adderall should be illegal because it's basically a legal dose of speed. However, many people are prescribed this drug and would not be very happy that it's going away (because of dependency/it's addictive/they feel it works for them). Would you prefer that the government completely outlaw this drug immediately or restrict it's consumption over time? There's already a black market for Adderall. There are worse drugs on the black market that can mimic the desired effects of Adderall as well. Let's say that completely outlawing this drug today would cause people to immediately search for these other drugs. Would you prefer that the state outlaw the drug today or would you prefer that the state slowly place restrictions on adderall over time and then prohibit it fully later? I know this is different from abortion. This is precisely why I told you that abortion was a bad example but I'll gladly continue discussing this topic since it has become interesting.


[quote] People can only be won fully to the pro-life side when they realize this truth. And the deliberate killing of a baby is at least as evil as rape, though both are vile and despicable acts of violence.[/quote]
Exactly. If people don't believe abortion is murder, they'll think it's ludicrous to outlaw it.
[quote]Yes, there are effective and ineffective ways of teaching this truth, and not every method is appropriate for every circumstance, but the truth about abortion can and is spoken in charity. But if we refuse to call the evil of abortion for what it is - murder of the innocent - then we are being neither effective nor honest. If we insist on pussyfooting around this central truth, talking as though abortion is really not that bad, and nothing more than a not-so-great personal choice, then there is little reason to want to get rid of this evil nor for others to oppose it. Refusing to call evil by its true name is not truly Christian.[/quote] We can call it murder but, realistically speaking, it doesn't stop there. It rarely stops there. You even said "murdering the innocent". Although this is a redundant statement, it's interesting to point out that you, most likely without noticing, emphasized "innocent". Much of the Pro-life lingo seems to be worded in a way to make the other side look horrible. Our tactics need to change from making pro-choicers seem monstrous to actually dialoguing with the other side. I'm not blaming you for this because it's ingrained in us so much that we don't realize it. We need to be more charitable about discussing this issue and it starts by taking the emotion out of the arguments.

[quote]While nobody mentioned Hitler here, since you brought him up, this brings up an interesting issue: If you were a German in the Nazi era who was opposed to Hitler and was aware of the Jewish Holocaust, and were trying to win supporters of Hitler to your side, would you refuse to call out the Nazis' murderous actions for what they really were, and expose the murderous evil of the "Final Solution," or would you insist on avoiding being straightforward about these issues for fear of upsetting people and turning them away? Would you refuse any criticism of the Nazis as "not Christian"?[/quote]

Very interesting point. I believe Pope Pius XII was criticized for doing what I would have done. I wouldn't have tried to convince people to join me. My experiences abroad have taught me that it's better to work behind the scenes if you want to do any good under an oppressive government. I'd rather help Jews secretly instead of get killed and achieve nothing.
[quote](And before everyone starts screaming "Godwin's Law," try giving this scenario some serious thought. Is it wrong to call out evil for what it is and inform people of it? Evil in this world is hardly confined to a long-dead Austrian guy with a dorky little mustache.)
[/quote]
I very much appreciate this turn in conversation. It's interesting, even though It might not fit the abortion topic completely.

Edited November 5, 2011 by musturde

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' timestamp='1320476749' post='2331760']
I apologize If I'm not very clear but I'll try to rephrase my question again. Let's say the government wants to ban the prescription drug Adderall (which is a million times worse than many illegal drugs). Let's say the Church agreed that Adderall should be illegal because it's basically a legal dose of speed. However, many people are prescribed this drug and would not be very happy that it's going away (because of dependency/it's addictive/they feel it works for them). Would you prefer that the government completely outlaw this drug immediately or restrict it's consumption over time? There's already a black market for Adderall. There are worse drugs on the black market that can mimic the desired effects of Adderall as well. Let's say that completely outlawing this drug today would cause people to immediately search for these other drugs. Would you prefer that the state outlaw the drug today or would you prefer that the state slowly place restrictions on adderall over time and then prohibit it fully later? I know this is different from abortion. This is precisely why I told you that abortion was a bad example but I'll gladly continue discussing this topic since it has become interesting.[/quote]
It's good that you see how this issue is different from that of abortion.

While the Church condemns use of drugs "except on strictly therapeutic grounds" (CCC 2291) and their clandestine production and trafficking, it doesn't ever give a list of exactly what drugs should and should not be outlawed. I think that there's a certain moral "grey area" involving drugs. If the drug does have a legitimate medical purpose (even if in very small, controlled doses), then its use would not be intrinsically immoral in itself (as is true of abortion and other intrinsically evil acts). The legal actions taken against this drug, and whether their outlawing would lead to worse evils would be more a prudential decision.

While this is definitely a legitimate debate topic, it's one I'm not personally as interested in debating as the abortion issue - in which I saw a serous problem with your argument regarding it in your earlier posts.

[quote]Exactly. If people don't believe abortion is murder, they'll think it's ludicrous to outlaw it.

We can call it murder but, realistically speaking, it doesn't stop there. It rarely stops there. You even said "murdering the innocent". Although this is a redundant statement, it's interesting to point out that you, most likely without noticing, emphasized "innocent". Much of the Pro-life lingo seems to be worded in a way to make the other side look horrible. Our tactics need to change from making pro-choicers seem monstrous to actually dialoguing with the other side. I'm not blaming you for this because it's ingrained in us so much that we don't realize it. We need to be more charitable about discussing this issue and it starts by taking the emotion out of the arguments.[/quote]
While the phrase "murdering the innocent" may be a bit redundant, my use of the word "innocent" was not accidental or thoughtless. There are few human beings this side of heaven more innocent than a baby, nor more completely helpless and vulnerable. It has done and can do nothing malicious against another person.
Yes, I do regard the killing of an innocent child as a particularly abhorrent, cowardly, and despicable kind of murder - much as that fact may offend modern sensibilities which like to excuse killing for convenience. I would regard the deliberate murder of an innocent baby as being in a sense worse than, say, a gangster whacking a rival gangster, even though both acts would be murder and morally wrong.

If you think it's somehow wrong for us to even emphasize the innocence of the victims of abortion, then it seems you truly want to hobble and water down the pro-life message in order to make it pc and inoffensive to liberal ears. Sorry, but that I refuse to do.

And, yes, objectively the act of abortion which we oppose - as well as promoting and profiting from it -[i][b] is[/b][/i] horrible. We pro-lifers would not be so adamantly opposed to it if it were not.
If people were running a business in which they killed your year-old baby and tossed its remains in the garbage for a fee, would you regard [i]that[/i] as horrible? Or would you insist on watering down your opposition to this disgusting business ("let's not call those babies innocent!") in order to avoid upsetting people?

If people are unaware of the horror of what is involved in the abortion racket, they should be made aware of it in all charity, in order that they might avoid being a party to this evil.

The language I'm using here is simply honest. The language of the "other side" is calculatedly and deliberately deceptive and full of dishonest euphemisms. The very term "pro-choice" is itself a calculated term to make people view the pro-abortion cause more favorably, as is their even-more-ridiculous epiphet "anti-choice" (popular in pro-abortion literature) to refer to those opposed to abortion. The issue of contention is not "choice" in some generic, broad sense, but specifically the choice to kill a child by abortion. The other side will do anything to draw the attention away from the act of abortion itself and what involves. It's all nice-sounding and evasive rhetoric about "choice" and "women's rights" and "reproductive freedom." Anything and everything to avoid discussion of abortion itself.

There's absolutely nothing uncharitable or un-Christian about calling out evil for what it is.

Letting the enemy define the debate with their deceptive and deliberately misleading language is not charitable nor effective, but merely helps keep people muddled and in the dark.


[quote]Very interesting point. I believe Pope Pius XII was criticized for doing what I would have done. I wouldn't have tried to convince people to join me. My experiences abroad have taught me that it's better to work behind the scenes if you want to do any good under an oppressive government. I'd rather help Jews secretly instead of get killed and achieve nothing.[/quote]
Fine, though I believe you missed the point of what I was asking. My point was about trying to convince other people about the evil of something they may support - which they may be genuinely or willfully ignorant of. It wasn't so much about doing good under an oppressive government regime. You probably won't get killed by the government for speaking out against abortion - though you may face opposition or ridicule from others.

I probably should have set my scenario specifically before the Nazis were actually in control of the government - though that would be before the holocaust (which most Germans were unaware of until after the war was over). People can and do support very evil things out of ignorance or fear without being monsters themselves. I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to clearly expose the evil of what they perhaps unwittingly support.

I don't think watering down our language to talk as if abortion isn't really that bad will do any good.

[musturde]

[quote]
While the Church condemns use of drugs "except on strictly therapeutic grounds" (CCC 2291) and their clandestine production and trafficking, it doesn't ever give a list of exactly what drugs should and should not be outlawed. I think that there's a certain moral "grey area" involving drugs. If the drug does have a legitimate medical purpose (even if in very small, controlled doses), then its use would not be intrinsically immoral in itself (as is true of abortion and other intrinsically evil acts). The legal actions taken against this drug, and whether their outlawing would lead to worse evils would be more a prudential decision. [/quote] Thank you, this is the answer I was interested in.

[quote]While this is definitely a legitimate debate topic, it's one I'm not personally as interested in debating as the abortion issue - in which I saw a serous problem with your argument regarding it in your earlier posts. [/quote]
That's fine. We can discuss this too.


[quote] While the phrase "murdering the innocent" may be a bit redundant, my use of the word "innocent" was not accidental or thoughtless. There are few human beings this side of heaven more innocent than a baby, nor more completely helpless and vulnerable. It has done and can do nothing malicious against another person. Yes, I do regard the killing of an innocent child as a particularly abhorrent, cowardly, and despicable kind of murder - much as that fact may offend modern sensibilities which like to excuse killing for convenience. I would regard the deliberate murder of an innocent baby as being in a sense worse than, say, a gangster whacking a rival gangster, even though both acts would be murder and morally wrong. [/quote]
I understand what you're saying. However, convincing pro-choicers that aborting the fetus within the first week or so is murder may not make much sense to them. Late abortions can easily be argued to be murder because the baby is developed up to a point where very few people can even argue it's not a person yet. One can say "Abortion is murder". That's fine. However, we cannot deny that at some point in every abortion argument, words like "holocaust" come up. In a political environment, such terms are unacceptable because they lead to nothing. Calling people from the pro-choice camp names does not change their point of view (especially if we're talking about early abortions). This sort of tactic might appeal to people who know nothing about the abortion argument or to people who are already pro-life but it will alienate the pro-choicers. Imagine if I went to a Synagogue and told everyone they're going to hell unless they convert to Christianity while calling them heathens and infidels. Does this tactic actually work? Criticizing others does not lead to a resolution. Unless we believe the pro-choicers are hopeless and not worth convincing, I think we should be careful about our choice of words in dialogue with them.