Verdict Reached In Gosnell Abortion Trial

[4588686]

Aww, poor little Hasan.

 

 

I'm plenty big where it counts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My self regard.  

[4588686]

 If you told them you were intending to get rid of contraception as well they would switch and start supporting the pro choice side and they’d do it without a second thought. In my experience for most people outside of the Catholic Church contraception isn’t even a question, of course you are going to use it, why wouldn’t you? I know it wasn't until I started investigating Catholicism that I even realized some people had a moral issue with birth control.

 

 

That's essentially why I've thrown my lot in with the pro-choice side.  If it's going to be all or nothing then I'd pick the side of human freedom.  And a lot of people feel the same way.  Which is a major reason for the GOP's problem with women voters.  

[Socrates]

Let's "pick the side of human freedom" when it's the "freedom" to murder a baby.

 

But not when it's the freedom to choose what weapons to own, or whether one's income should pay for killing of babies, or what insurance plan to purchase, etc., etc.

 

Gotta love the wild, whacky world of the "liberal" mindset. 

[Socrates]

Let's "pick the side of human freedom" when it's the "freedom" to murder a baby.

 

But not when it's the freedom to choose what weapons to own, or whether one's income should pay for killing of babies, or what insurance plan to purchase, etc., etc.

 

Gotta love the wild, whacky world of the "liberal" mindset. 

[KnightofChrist]

Maybe more people would start to see that we're right if we weren't such giant donkeys to them. Just a thought. :|

If he were denying the personhood of any other group of human beings, and supporting that group's mass-murder you may have not seen things the same way.

[4588686]

If he were denying the personhood of any other group of human beings, and supporting that group's mass-murder you may have not seen things the same way.

 

 

That sort of rampant bigotry is a serious problem.  Did you know that some Catholic couples are actually willing to stop having sex just to ensure that they're not responsible for a group of human beings existing?

[4588686]

Let's "pick the side of human freedom" when it's the "freedom" to murder a baby.

 

But not when it's the freedom to choose what weapons to own, or whether one's income should pay for killing of babies, or what insurance plan to purchase, etc., etc.

 

Gotta love the wild, whacky world of the "liberal" mindset. 

 

 

Tax dollars don't go to pay for abortions and since when are people not able to choose what insurance plans they want to buy?  As for restricting the types of weapons people can buy, I wasn't aware that that was a uniquely liberal issue.  So now you support people being able to buy stinger missiles and nerve gas?  

[arfink]

Tax dollars don't go to pay for abortions and since when are people not able to choose what insurance plans they want to buy?  As for restricting the types of weapons people can buy, I wasn't aware that that was a uniquely liberal issue.  So now you support people being able to buy stinger missiles and nerve gas?  

 

I don't think that's true. For one thing, abortions can be paid for with medical assistance, which last time I checked is funded by taxpayer dollars. Right now in the state of Minnesota fully 1/3 of all abortions are paid for with medical assistance.

[Basilisa Marie]

If he were denying the personhood of any other group of human beings, and supporting that group's mass-murder you may have not seen things the same way.

 

 

No, it wouldn't matter.  The only way you're going to ever change anyone's mind is to start by treating them respectfully.  Someone who articulates him or her self reasonably and respectfully deserves the same courtesy in return, no matter their position. 

 

And you know what? Even if they don't, articulating your OWN position with respect serves to further underscore the truth in your position.  

Edited May 15, 2013 by Basilisa Marie

[Basilisa Marie]

I don't think it is attitude.  It's content.  People who were here in 2008 will remember how equivocating I was on my decision to vote for Obama due to his pro-choice position.  A lot of that was emotional from my being raised Catholic but for a long time I really and genuinely tried to be a bridge between the pro-choice and pro-life side.  I argued to a lot of pro-choice people that the issue was more morally complex than they recognized.  I still think that abortion is a tough moral issue but I have seen, through this site and the policy decisions with the pro-life crowed in power, that there is really no possibility for compromise.  If the right of women to sexual autonomy is going to be protected than the pro-life movement has to be defeated.  I don't know if that is going to happen.  I think that for a long time to come there will be large swaths of the country where abortion is de facto illegal and contraceptives will become increasingly difficult to obtain.  I'm almost positive that the pro-life movement will lose in the long run but I think they will have a fair number of successful years before that.  

 

But I think content is intrinsically formed by attitude, and if you adopt the right attitude, we're more likely to begin to listen to what each other has to say.  I'm not going to play nice with people who belittle what I have to say. 

 

I think there are more ways of "doing" the pro-life movement than the ones that are really popular right now.  I don't think it's right to go for changing the laws to make them more "pro-life," it's only going to cause problems, and many pro-choice nightmares would come true. I've yet to see a personhood law that wasn't barbaric, among other things.  If the pro-life movement instead became more grassroots, focused on reaching out to individual women and families, changing the culture from the ground up instead of the top down, we'd see lasting results.  Plus that way, women get to keep their legal "sexual autonomy" that the pro-choice movement likes.   We have to change minds, not laws.  The legal status of abortion and contraception doesn't matter if people stop using them.  In some sense, I agree with you - if the pro-life movement keeps focusing on laws and forcing the law to be more pro-life without changing the culture first, it's going to be defeated.  

[KnightofChrist]

No, it wouldn't matter.  The only way you're going to ever change anyone's mind is to start by treating them respectfully.  Someone who articulates him or her self reasonably and respectfully deserves the same courtesy in return, no matter their position. 

 

And you know what? Even if they don't, articulating your OWN position with respect serves to further underscore the truth in your position.  

 

I really don't think so, not at all, hard line pro-choicers get a pass that other hate groups don't receive and they are treated much softer than other hate groups as well. If someone were to come on Phatmass and fervently deny the personhood of a certain ethic group of human beings and that groups mass-murder that person would not last a week here and he or she would receive much more heat from phatmassers than I have given to Hasan. I would also seriously doubt any one would come to their defense.

[To Jesus Through Mary]

Tax dollars don't go to pay for abortions and since when are people not able to choose what insurance plans they want to buy?  As for restricting the types of weapons people can buy, I wasn't aware that that was a uniquely liberal issue.  So now you support people being able to buy stinger missiles and nerve gas?  

 

False. 

http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_SFAM.pdf

[Socrates]

Tax dollars don't go to pay for abortions and since when are people not able to choose what insurance plans they want to buy?  As for restricting the types of weapons people can buy, I wasn't aware that that was a uniquely liberal issue.  So now you support people being able to buy stinger missiles and nerve gas?  

 

Tax dollars pay for abortions indirectly by funding abortion-providing organizations.  Taxation of income itself violates human freedom of choice, in that tax-payers have no choice in what their tax money is spent on.  Under the HHS mandate, employers are forced against their will provide insurance plans covering contraceptives and abortifacient drugs - and people are forced to buy health insurance whether they choose to or not.  And yes, it's mostly the political left that supports increased restrictions on gun ownership.

 

 

I could go on and on, but you're either missing or evading the main point of my original post, which is simple:

 

Typical "liberals" and leftists believe (rightly or wrongly) that many, many things should trump human freedom of choice in many cases - as shown by their positions on a wide variety of issues.

 

Yet, the human right to life itself is not among them.

 

I find this a bizarre, and quite disturbing, ordering of priorities.

[Socrates]

But I think content is intrinsically formed by attitude, and if you adopt the right attitude, we're more likely to begin to listen to what each other has to say.  I'm not going to play nice with people who belittle what I have to say. 

 

I think there are more ways of "doing" the pro-life movement than the ones that are really popular right now.  I don't think it's right to go for changing the laws to make them more "pro-life," it's only going to cause problems, and many pro-choice nightmares would come true. I've yet to see a personhood law that wasn't barbaric, among other things.  If the pro-life movement instead became more grassroots, focused on reaching out to individual women and families, changing the culture from the ground up instead of the top down, we'd see lasting results.  Plus that way, women get to keep their legal "sexual autonomy" that the pro-choice movement likes.   We have to change minds, not laws.  The legal status of abortion and contraception doesn't matter if people stop using them.  In some sense, I agree with you - if the pro-life movement keeps focusing on laws and forcing the law to be more pro-life without changing the culture first, it's going to be defeated.  

 

So, are you suggesting that pro-lifers should drop all efforts to afford any legal protection to unborn human beings, or any legal restrictions on the killing of the innocent, in order to gain more "common ground" with so-called "pro-choicers"?

 

And how exactly are personhood laws "barbaric"?

 

Quite frankly, I'm getting absolutely and thoroughly sick of seeing arguments that set up a false dichotomy between trying to win individual hearts and minds / changing the culture and supporting legal protection for unborn persons.

It's not an "either/or" deal; it's "both/and."

 

Most of the people I've known who do the most deeds of charity, and work to change hearts and minds and create a culture of life - by working at or supporting crisis pregnancy centers, organizing drives to collect goods and money for women in crisis pregnancies, sidewalk counseling, helping women with post-abortion trauma, adopting unwanted children, educating people on the sanctity of all human life - are also strongly politically pro-life, supporting pro-life laws and political candidates.

There's no conflict between the two.

 

Should we all be doing more to reach out to individual women and families and change hearts and minds?  Absolutely.  However, this does not mean pro-lifers should abandon the legal and political battles to the enemy - thus ensuring that the pro-abortion side goes completely unchecked.

 

Laws which afford no legal protection to the most vulnerable of innocent human life or inherently unjust - and must in good conscience be opposed, whether we are immediately successful or not.

Of course, we need to change the culture first before we see any major progress on the political/legal front, but failing to stand up for unborn babies and human life in this area will certainly not make anything better.  At the very least, supporting pro-life laws can provide a teaching opportunity for explaining why we believe unborn human life should be protected.  And even modest legal checks on the slaughter of the innocent are better than none at all.  If we teach that the unborn are human persons who should not be killed, yet do not support them having any legal protection, this simply sends the message that we don't regard their lives as all that important - and sends the message to those in politics and law that the pro-life agenda can be completely neglected.

 

And so long as the idea of absolute "sexual autonomy" trumping all else, including the right to life, remains prevalent in our culture, there will be little progress against the evil of abortion.  This is one of the major areas in which the culture needs to be changed.  We need to fight such ideas, rather than give in to them.

[Slappo]

 The legal status of abortion and contraception doesn't matter if people stop using them. 

The problem is that's just not true. With that mindset all law doesn't matter. Speed limits don't matter if people don't drive too fast. Burglary laws don't matter if no one steals. Murder laws don't matter if no one kills each other.

 

It still matters because it means we have no legal problem with the killing of innocent children as long as they haven't been born yet. I'll get a parking ticket for not reading the sign, but my wife can have her fetus removed and even get insurance to cover it!