Here are two quotes from abortion-advocates regarding the use of graphic abortion pictures. I'll let you decide which one is honest and reasonable.
Exhibit #1: "Pro-Choice" blogger Her Royal Kainess:
Apparently the crazies are out in full-swing today. Coming in from Union Station and walking to my job, I spotted a row of anti-abortion activists wielding their favorite favorite weapon - giant posters of bloody, dismembered fetuses. Good morning to you, too!And Her Royal Kainess thinks we're the crazy ones?
I know that there's a more rational way to deal with The Crazies (read: Conservatives), in the same sense that there's a more rational way to work through anger stemming from rape or an abusive childhood. You could work through it if you really tried. You could attempt to engage in intellectual debate, or accept the "different people, different perspectives" standpoint (even if those perspectives are oppressive and restrictive). But the way I look at it, no one is going to change anyone's views. I am not going to convince you that a woman should have the right to choose because, well, you are A Crazy. You are not going to make me decide Roe v. Wade is blasphemous because you made me retch in my coffee this morning.
Crazies just plain, old make me angry. I don't want to converse with them, I would rather just circle distantly around them like you do aggressive, screeching monkeys at th zoo, and fantasize about burying a machete in their head. FUCKERS. (italics added)
Exhibit #2: Feminist and abortion-advocate Naomi Wolf, in The New Republic:
The pro-choice movement often treats with contempt the pro-lifers' practice of holding up to our faces their disturbing graphics....[But] how can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? To insist that truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy. Besides, if these images are often the facts of the matter, and if we then claim that it is offensive for pro-choice women to be confronted with them, then we are making the judgment that women are too inherently weak to face a truth about which they have to make a grave decision. This view is unworthy of feminism.In that same New Republic article, Wolf writes,
We stand in jeopardy of losing something more important than votes; we stand in jeopardy of losing what can only be called our souls. Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs, and evasions. And we risk becoming...callous, selfish, and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life.Here's my suggestion for Her Royal Kainess: Before you call us crazy, why don't you do the hard work of actually advancing an argument? Here's my promise: make a good rational case for your abortion-choice view, and I WILL change my mind. I'm more committed to truth than I am ideology. But you'll have to do better than treat us to your violent pro-choice fantasies. It's so much easier to vent than to think, isn't it?
One more thing. If abortion is morally no big deal, as abortion-choicers insist, why are you so worked up about the pictures?
Check out this site:ReplyDelete
Apparently it often goes beyond fantasizing. I got the link from an article in this season's Human Life Review. I'd never heard of some of this stuff: E.g. A pro-life talk show host named Jerry Simon was killed by a pro-abortion activist, shot through his living room window. A pro-abort named Byron Looper killed pro-life Tennessee state senator Tommy Burks. I didn't know any of this stuff. It actually looks like there are _more_ ideologically motivated violent crimes against pro-lifers by pro-choicers, in fact, a lot more, than the other way around.
I have noticed that pro-choice blogs and anit-Christian sites often skew toward polemical rants filled with profanity. This is oddly consistent. If you ever venture into the comments section of some of these blogs the problem becomes considerably more noticeable. I remember in the film “Patton,” the general was receiving hate mail after slapping a soldier on the head. The importance of the mail was dismissed by his aid based on the foul language that the letters contained. It is not a good sign when someone is reduced to ad hominem attacks and profanity because reason is not their ally. Some of the most hateful and foul material I have ever read was written about Dr. William Lane Craig and his historical arguments for the resurrection. He is the most gracious and respectful debater I have ever seen, but the power of his logic reduces some to foul mouthed invectives. It produces nothing. It adds nothing to the dialogue, and it feeds the worst type of emotional response.ReplyDelete