publius over at Obsidian Wings gets it right on the issue of “Juno,” a movie that many on the right are billing as a powerful pro-life movie. Worth a read.
The reason Juno is able to go through with the pregnancy is the same reason she is able to openly contemplate abortion. It’s because everyone close to her is incredibly supportive of whatever choices she makes.
HT: Sullivan.
The Bad Idea Blog 
However she chose not to abort.
Indeed, she didn’t. That’s sort of the point though: she got to choose, and was with people that would support her either way. Obsidian’s point is that in a world where the pro-life crowd wouldn’t threaten the legal possibility of abortion at every turn, they’d probably be surprised at how many pro-choice people would be more receptive to lobbying women not to abort in a non-coercive, supportive fashion, rather than a lecturing, hostile, or deceptive fashion.
This might come as a shock to the pro-life crowd, but pro-choice people are not in favor of mandatory abortion of all, or even any, pregnancies.
Then it would be good idea for Planned Parenthood to talk about adoption as viable option. But they don’t.
But they do.
And second of all, any valid “then it would be a good idea” statements that logically follow my reasoning would have to apply only to that world in which the pro-life side has backed off their legal campaign to outlaw abortions as a choice. Since that hasn’t happened, the “then it would be a good idea” clauses do not follow.
On their website??? Big deal. The entire industry is to lure women in. Why don’t send girls away for a week to think about it? One week will not make a big difference in that industry anyway.
We will fight the “hood” on all fronts. It’s a bad idea to negotiate with evil.
Murder is always wrong. Period.
Am I being harsh and judgemental to tell others that murder is wrong and that people who muder others are bad, murderers?
Well so be it. Truth is truth and is often very, very ugly.
But the truth will set you free.
If all the wishy, washy, wimpy so called Christian pro-lifers got off there backsides and went to their local killing place and even just maintained a prayer vigil and told the truth to all those “poor” women who want to be left alone to murder their babies in peace that they will not find peace. There is no peace for unregenerate murderers, liars, thieves and other sinners.
If people are not persecuting you for proclaiming the truth, it is most likely that you are not in the truth.
You say they don’t mention it as a viable option, but they clearly do, so you’re flatly wrong. Saying “Big deal” is not quite the same thing as apologizing for spreading false information, is it? That you have other personal issues with the services they provide, and desire them to add all sorts of other restrictions and hoops to make patients jump through, is still sort of beside the point to anything I said.
Certainly: but not everyone agrees on what is or isn’t murder, and overlooking that distinction is basically just dodging the core of the debate.
Well, only if you are correct about it being the truth. Otherwise, it will set you off in the wrong direction entirely.
On the other hand, the fact that you are criticized is not itself evidence that you are correct. And while it’s fine if you want to use extremely heated rhetoric, it is a little lame to complain about “persecution” as a response, especially since its not clear what persecution you are receieving other than equally heated rhetoric back.
Finally, one person’s seeming wishy-washiness is another person’s humility. YMMV.
Bad wrote:
not everyone agrees on what is or isn’t murder, and overlooking that distinction is basically just dodging the core of the debate.
So if some one kills you but does not think it is a murder he should not be responsible for his action then, right?
Actually this reminds of Bill C who ones said: “”It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.”
No. That’s the second time you’ve said something demonstrably untrue, and you haven’t even admitted to the first time.
The abortion debate rests primarily on a difference of opinion about the moral status of a fetus. The debate is whether or not it is murder, in a legal and moral sense. I am not claiming that any random person can simply declare the debate over, as in your bizarrely irrelevant scenario.
The point is that you cannot simply continue to dodge this debate if you are going to actually grapple with the issue, as opposed to simply repeating your rhetoric.
Bad, the dictionary says that murder is “unlawful killing” so abortion if measured by mans’ standard is not murder in any country where it is lawful.
Thankfully we will not be held accountable to mans’ standard but to the standard of God and according to the measurably true Bible, this kind of killing is unlawful.
My comments are not heated rhetoric, I am stating a universal truth.
If you want to be informed why don’t you take a trip across to http://www.abort73.com/ and check out a video with photographic evidence of what abortion is and make up your own mind.
An uninformed opinion or choice is no opinion or choice.
Don’t be a closed minded sheep. Check it out.
The statement “do words have meaning” or “is there absolute truth” are self defeating and empty. Am I wrong in thinking that you are taking the stance that truth is relative? Situational ethics and all that rot?
And yes criticism is not evidence of correctness, truth and your alignment to the truth is.
Humility does not stand idly by and rationalise murder while babies get butchered.
I’m afraid that understanding a definition in a dictionary is not the same thing as understanding a philosophical concept, and if you think that words have only one meaning, then you don’t have a very good dictionary to begin with. The core issue is people’s judgment of what should be lawful or not, according to people’s concept of moral law. That you believe you have the answer doesn’t make you special, it makes you just one more opinion.
I’m pretty well informed when it comes to abortion. The pictures you guys wave around in front of preschoolers, hoping to give them nightmares are not particularly shocking when you understand what they actually are, or think about the situation from a moral perspective. The fact that something has the basic features of any mammalian embryo may be a good way to leading some people into thinking that an embryo has feelings or moral interests, but it doesn’t make it so anymore than cats being cute and acting like people sometimes means that they should be allowed to vote.
The funny thing about this debate for me is that I think that legal restrictions on late term abortions are often warranted and justified (not to mention inherently constitutional). But for some reason most on your side push the utterly absurd position that zygotes and early embryos have moral interests as well. It’s almost too silly to take seriously, but the fact that you take it deadly serious goes a long way towards making me pretty unsympathetic to your overall cause.
And your “persecutors” feel exactly the same way… except they probably don’t call themselves “persecuted” when they pretty obviously are not.
Uh, no. I’m pretty sure that you’ve come far closer to taking that stance than I have. Aren’t you the one who insists that we cannot know anything about the past history of the earth, for instance, based on the evidence? Sounds pretty post-modern to me.
Then why proudly assert that you are criticized and then imply that this demonstrates that you are correct?
Which, to me, is pretty good evidence that you don’t really believe your own rhetoric. If the government came for all left-handed people and took them away to concentration camps to be murdered, would your response really be to merely whine about it on the internet and claim to be morally superior because you called the government jerks and killers?
Sorry to dissapoint you Bad, but I do believe my own stance. You haven’t asked me if i limit myself to “whining” on the internet.
I am not morally superior to anyone, however I do know someone who is and that someone will hold you accountable for every idle word you have ever said never mind all that you have ever done.
And evidence is a requirement for science. I do believe in those things for which there is evidence. There is more than sufficient evidence that the world is not millions of years old if you are bothered taking the time out to go and look for it and to be open minded enough to take the evidence on it’s own merits without having a smug pre-judicial attitude.
But if you have time to post various diatribes about non-pressing matters such as evolution, you can’t be spending much time out saving babies. The rhetoric just seems out of touch with the reaction, it seems to me. If you disargee, then explain the discrepancy, don’t just hint.
As to your claims of the moral superiority of a God, not yourself, that’s irrelevant. God isn’t here speaking, you are. All your claims about what God wants are your claims: the buck stops with you, and whether anyone should believe that you have any idea what is or isn’t moral. Arguing that you are correct because you know what God wants is only as compelling as anyone believing that there is a God and that you know what it wants. And I have no reason to believe either.
And obviously, I disagree about what the evidence says for the age of earth (weren’t we talking about a fetal holocaust just now? Still seems like that subject just isn’t very pressing for you). You can claim that I’m closeminded or blocked by preconceptions of course, but the proof is in the pudding: the evidence of an old earth is there for all to see and evaluate, and if you think you have evidence of a young earth then by all means put it on the table and lets see what you’ve got.
Nice post, nice blog, I was searching for this nowadays, thank you. I found this site on erp : http://www.mb.com.tr/eng/