Home - List All Discussions

Challenging the Abuse of the Consistent Life Ethic

by: RachelMacNair

This is written in response to an item discussed in the August LifeTalk.
It's hardly surprising that people who have trouble getting the pro-life concept straight also have trouble getting the consistent-life concept straight. The same folks who came up with "pro-lifers think life begins at conception and ends at birth" are ones that come up with other issues to which the anti-killing principles ought to apply and challenge pro-lifers on them. They were doing so long before the term "consistent life ethic" came along in the current debate. Nor do they always have a tender care for those other issues; a friend of mine reports that when challenged about whether he was also against the death penalty, and simply showed the back of his t-shirt to establish that he was, the challenger turned out not to even be against the death penalty himself! Logic was not the point.
People have reported situations in which the words "consistent life ethic" were intentionally abused as if they countered the pro-life position instead of strengthening it. Here are a couple of those situations, and I give the true consistent-life response:
People went into a nun at a Catholic hospital with a concern that an abortionist was getting hospital privileges there. The nun showed a clear lack of understanding by proceeding to challenge them on whether they opposed the death penalty, war, etc. This non-sequitor is of course ridiculous. Here's the way a knowledgeable consistent-life person would respond:
"Right. All these issues are connected, because people are deceived into thinking that violence solves problems, and they dehumanize other people, and hide the ugliness of their violence with euphemisms. So aren't you delighted to have an opportunity to directly help stop this one form of violence? Because they're all connected, your stand to stop this kind will impact all the other kinds as well. You not only help protect children in the womb from abortion, but you also help establish the principle that violence is no way to solve problems, and that principle will then apply elsewhere as well. Your firm stand here will reverberate to more than just abortion alone. Aren't you pleased to have such an opportunity?"
Another situation: people go to their clergy person and ask that the house of worship be more active against abortion. The response they get back is how we have to take a stand on all these other various issue of violence in order to be consistent. Assuming no one is proposing that a house of worship isn't allowed to be concerned about any other issues than abortion, one simple response is to say sure, but without abortion as well, there's a gaping hole and the consistent life ethic is accordingly being ignored. That's exactly what's happening - without abortion and/or euthanasia, there is no consistent life ethic, since that's what "life" means within it. Peace movement people commonly understand that issues are connected, which is why when peace movement people see the light about being pro-life, this kind of connecting of issues of violence comes naturally to us.
Or another response would be to say, "Well then, I see that the aspect you're most interested in for addressing abortion would be to connect it to other issues of violence, with all the dehumanization and euphemisms involved. That's a good approach. There are other good ones - the prolife feminist, the anti-racist, the provision of services to pregnant women and new mothers, the straight appeal to conscience with the baby photos. But if the one that appeals to you the most is how feticide is connected to other kinds of killing, then that's a good approach too. Take it."
The criticism has been made that Cardinal Bernardin coined the "seamless garment" to water down the abortion issue for political reasons. I'm skeptical, given his writings, but it's really beside the point. He wasn't the one who came up with the term. He picked it up from activist Catholic women who weren't into political machinations and whose motivation was clearly to advance the pro-life cause.
My own experience is that the consistent life ethic is far and away the most effective pro-life argument to use with peace-movement people or otherwise liberal people, especially ones who have a sense of what's wrong with abortion but suffer from excessive stereotyping of prolifers.
-- Rachel MacNair
Vice President, Consistent Life (www.consistent-life.org)
President of Feminists for Life of America, 1984-1994
jailed twice for abortion clinic sit-ins
co-editor of book: ProLife Feminism: Yesterday & Today
co-editor of book: Consistently Opposing Killing: From Abortion to Assisted Suicide, the Death Penalty, and War
author of book: Achieving Peace in the Abortion War

reply from: Banned Member

I am not interesting in placating abortion loving pacifist liberals.

Abortion is murder. Abortion solves nothing. Abortion is violence.
A free nation governed by the will of a people may make war if it is in their nations vital national interests. War may save lives and improve ways of living and stabilize nations where the conditions for peace and rule of law may prevail where they might not have had war been excluded as an option for solving problems. War is not simply the love of death and violence. Modern war utilizes technological advances to remove specific obstacles to peace, military targets, weapons, or other resourses which may be advantagious to dictatorial regimes which oppress free peoples.
A fair and compassionate criminal system of justice may use the death penalty at varied and specific times. Violence per se is not the way to "solve problems" but may be a way to defend oneself and country from violence committed by the hands of people who do not respect the rule of law or the dignity of other peoples personal freedoms.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Well, Augustine, I'd say you're not a consistent-life person, don't wish to be, and shouldn't be sent to do persuasive work with people for whom that pro-life approach works best.
But do be aware that there are prolife liberal pacifists -- I documented that by listing a handful of activities and writings after my name, and there are many of us. We get steadfastly ignored by the press, but we're here.
Whether you oppose war or not, you certainly understand that those who do oppose war because it's "not healthy for children and other living things" are inconsistent to then say feticide is ok. Don't you want them to have fellow peace-movement folks, people they respect, challenging them on it?
And if they're abusing the consistent life ethic in a pro-abortion way, we should all be educated on that ethic enough to know that they are in fact twisting it around and abusing it.

reply from: Banned Member

Did you happen to notice the condition of life for children in pre-war Iraq who subject to hunger, disease, and even improsonment?
Did you happen to consider the billions on dollars that were diverted from the oil for food programs which left many hundreds of thousands of Iraq children wanting?
Did you happen tp consider the environental disasters which were caused by Saddam Hussein to destroyed the livelihoods of hundreds of thousand of Iraqi families?
Did you happen to consider the environmental impact on water, air and food quality in pre-war Iraq because of the deliberate environmental abuses by Saddam Hussein?

reply from: Banned Member

I am constantly pro-life. I am anti-abortion.

reply from: Shenanigans

So, do you guys have a time line for the invasion of North Korea, China, Dafur, et cetera?

reply from: Shenanigans

I agree with you.
Pro-Lifers have to be beyond reproach, even though the pro-abortion movement is based on lies and propaganda sob stories, we have to raise above that, to the point that they cannot fault our opinions or logic.
Its not fair that we have to be better than our opponents all the time, but then nor is it that 4,400 children will die today because of a movement based on BS and an anti-woman mindset.
The more consistant we are, the more crazy they look, and the more crazy they look the less fence sitters and the general public want to have to do with them. I've seen luke warm pro-choicers leave their "side" because of the insanity of their kin, all it took was a soft approach, consistancy and logic.

reply from: patico

I'm afraid "Augustine" lost me when he said "I am not interesting [sic] in placating abortion loving pacifist liberals." (Not because of that first adjective; I assumed that he was not really disclaiming any ability to attract or stimulate...) But rather -- was there anyone on this forum who WAS interested in placating abortion loving pacifist liberals?? Seems like he jumped the rails a bit there. Rachel's point was that there are some of us who don't feel that life should ever be treated as something of little value, whether it is the life of a prisoner on death row (who, we all know by know, may or may not have committed the capital crime of which he was convicted...but let's assume that he was guilty), the life of a presumed (or even avowed) enemy -- whom Jesus tells us to forgive, the life of an unborn child (who both liberals and conservatives may conveniently forget about when they are born into an inner-city ghetto, a poor rural area or a third-world country), or any other human life. Consistency may be not be as "interesting" but, like always telling the truth, at least it's a lot easier to keep straight.

reply from: Banned Member

I am not interested in placating abortion loving pacifist liberals.

Abortion is murder. Abortion solves nothing. Abortion is violence.
A free nation governed by the will of a people may make war if it is in their nations vital national interests. War may save lives and improve ways of living and stabilize nations where the conditions for peace and rule of law may prevail where they might not have had war been excluded as an option for solving problems. War is not simply the love of death and violence. Modern war utilizes technological advances to remove specific obstacles to peace, military targets, weapons, or other resourses which may be advantagious to dictatorial regimes which oppress free peoples.
A fair and compassionate criminal system of justice may use the death penalty at varied and specific times. Violence per se is not the way to "solve problems" but may be a way to defend oneself and country from violence committed by the hands of people who do not respect the rule of law or the dignity of other peoples personal freedoms.
Because a person who has killed women and children is executed does not mean that people do not value human life but that they value innocent human life more than to allow a cold blooded killed to ever walk the earth free to murder again.

reply from: TomHaws

I appreciate your words, Shenanigan. It's our own moral blind spots that hinder our effectiveness. Only by being beyond reproach do we make the long-lasting difference.

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah but once the kid's born you could care less about them.

reply from: Shenanigans

Yeah but once the kid's born you could care less about them.
Well, there were those comments he made about Baby Hope...

reply from: Shenanigans

Its kinda irritating actually, I mean, pro-lifers, we're just human, we're not perfect. If we swear or slip up and insult someone by calling them a baby killer or something then we get literally racked over the coals by the pro-aborts. Yet, the pro-aborts can swear and carry signs like "sluts for abortion" and what not, but heaven forbid we point out their foibles.

reply from: BillSamuel

Many people have an image of pro-lifers as people with very narrow concerns who are judgmental and carry little about people after birth. Some of them side with the "pro-choice" position mainly because of that, but without having seriously considered the issue. When they come across committed people with a consistent life ethic perspective, they are often open to real dialogue and taking a new look at the abortion issue within this broader context. When they see people genuinely opposing the whole culture of violence, they may see a way that is better than the typical political divisions. We can offer a holistic vision of a different world, one which looks a lot like the peaceable kingdom the prophet Isaiah described and which permeates the message of Jesus Christ.

reply from: faithman

Yepper, we can continue to care about what pro death scumbags think, or we can stop the killing. We can continue to polish the image of a failed pro-life bowel movement, or we can actually defend the innocent womb child. The holier than thou attitudes of the so called prolife movement, have done more than any Planned Parenthood propaganda to keep abortion on demand legal. If abortion is murder, then it is high time we start acting like it. We can play "nice" after the slaughter stops.

reply from: BossMomma

Yeah but once the kid's born you could care less about them.
Well, there were those comments he made about Baby Hope...
Yep, going on about how evil Mya was for giving her baby basic care like food. How he'd prefer that she just starve to death and be done with it.

reply from: BossMomma

Considering how much you idolize the killer of George Tiller and encourage people to take up arms in the matter, you have nothing at all against killing so long as the victim is born.

reply from: maryoh

All killing of human beings is wrong -- God said "Do not kill." It is not that hard to understand.
Jesus showed us how hard it is to live that and was killed himself. Reading the gospels shows no indication that He thought killing was good -- He risked his life to heal, deliver folks from what was hurting/trying to kill them. I believe that abortion is always wrong as is all killing of humans for whatever reason. We choose to do wrong when we kill.

reply from: Banned Member

The Catholic Church 2000 years old, does not exclude the use of the death penalty. People have the right to use force when necessary to defend their lives and the lives of others when threatened by violence.

reply from: faithman

Considering how much you idolize the killer of George Tiller and encourage people to take up arms in the matter, you have nothing at all against killing so long as the victim is born.
You are a lying pervert, and do not have a right to my opinion. I have everything against the taking of innocent life whether born or preborn, and have said so numerous times. And your word twisting butt knows that to be a fact. What I have said from the very beginning is that if it is right to use force to protect the life of the born, then simply from the position of equality, the same is true for the womb child. You would do better spending your time cleaning your house and getting help for your sexual perversion and mental confusion.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Augustine said:
"Did you happen to notice the condition of life for children in pre-war Iraq who subject to hunger, disease, and even improsonment?" Etc.
Yes, Augustine, I have considered all those things, and I could give you a lengthy answer. But then I would be arguing about the merits of the war in Iraq, and I would understand that to be off-topic.
If we go back to my original point, consider the nun who is actually pro-abortion but, being a nun, won't say so outright. She has had the need for an anti-abortion action at her hospital brought to her attention -- namely, denying hospital privileges to a local abortionist. She responds by asking those bringing it to her attention if they are against war and the death penalty also.
If your response to her is to say no, and then argue on behalf of the war, I would propose that you have entirely lost effectiveness in this situation. You are not impressing her well, and you're taking away time from the crucial issue at hand.
Another response would be to say that her point is irrelevant, inasmuch as no one is proposing the hospital participate in an execution or promote a war. If the nun were attentive to logic, this could work -- but if she were attentive to logic, she wouldn't have gone off-topic like that in the first place.
Mark Crutcher mentioned this example to me in a phone conversation as something that had actually happened recently. The people who had gone to the nun had apparently not known how to handle it. It was my understanding that I was being helpful by offering a possible response that might be effective -- if not to that specific unreachable nun, then at least to other people. At the very least, we should understand what the consistent life ethic actually is, rather than allowing pro-abortion people to twist it out of shape this way.

reply from: MC3

Rachel and I have disagreed over this issue for years and, I have no doubt, will continue to do so.
From a philosophical perspective, the Consistent Life Ethic (or Seemless Garment as it is sometimes known) implies that one cannot be truly pro-life without buying into every liberal cause that touches on the issue of human life. This often leads to a kind of "more-pro-life-than-thou" approach that I find indefensible. As just one example, many followers of CLE/SG will openly contend that those who support capital punishment are disqualified from legitimately claiming to be pro-life. That is preposterous. In reality, it is in no way inconsistent to contend that convicted murderers should be executed but innocent babies should not be. (Just to keep the record straight, I have always been and I remain an outspoken opponent of the death penalty.)
Recently, I have even heard it stated on national television that people who oppose government-controlled socialized medicine, or support the war on terror, cannot make a legitimate claim of being pro-life. Other CLE/SG types consistently try to create equivalency between abortion and things like "ecological justice," "fair immigration policies," "affordable housing," etc.
The point is, there is no denying that America faces many life-related social problems. However, if abortion is the taking of a human life - and even many pro-aborts now openly admit that it is - then our country is directly participating the largest holocaust in the history of the world. To date, we have brutally executed over 50 million helpless children and we continue to do so at the rate of more than 3000 a day. To suggest that any other issue is even in the same universe with that is lunacy.
On a pragmatic level, there has always been a gigantic difference between the CLE/SG philosophy and its application in the real world. The best evidence of this is seen when a pro-lifer confronts the leaders of his church about their lack of involvement in stopping abortion. If this clergyman is familiar with the CLE/SG approach, the common response is for them to ask the pro-lifer what he is doing to stop global warming or the war in Iraq or homelessness, etc. This will quickly be followed by a stern lecture on how inconsistent we pro-lifers are, and how we support every war that comes along, and how we support the death penalty, and that we should be working for social justice in all areas and not just be focused on this one issue.
In this case, CLE/SG is being used to neutralize the abortion issue and silence pro-lifers. This has been proven by the fact that when people go to these same church leaders with concerns about one of these other social issues, they are never asked what they are doing about abortion. NEVER! Further, for CLE/SG to be used in this way in not rare. It is a tactic perfected by Cardinal Bernadine in Chicago years ago and one that has been copied tens-of-thousands times since. Whatever the intention of CLE/SG, this is how it is actually employed and that is so with virtually no exceptions. If the true believers in CLE/SG have a quarrel, it should not be with me but with their own inability to police the those who manipulate it for their own political purposes.
So understand, my problem is not with the CLE/SG philosophy, even though I do not fully embrace it. My problem is with the dishonest way it is applied. By any objective measure, in practice, it is a scam that works to the benefit of our enemies. In addition, I do not see any way the true believers like Rachel can stop it from being used in this way.
Now, if my attitude about CLE/SG makes me unqualified to call myself pro-life, my recommendation is that the people offended by this no longer refer to me by that label. If it makes them feel better, they should just call me "anti-abortion." I can happily live with that.

Before closing, let me repeat something I've said here many times. If you are one of those people who say that abortion is just "one of many issues" and that we have to give equal weight to other "life issues," I ask you to imagine that someone has kidnapped you, taken you to a warehouse somewhere, stripped you naked and locked you in a cell from which there is no possibility of escape. You are alone, helpless and completely subject to their will. Next, they tell you that at nine tomorrow morning they are going to take you to another location where someone is going to slowly tear off your legs, rip your arms from their sockets, crush your chest, collapse your skull and, finally, grind you up in a garbage disposal and flush you down the sewer system. Of course, there is no way to know exactly when your death will occur, but before it comes you can expect to experience an unimaginable agony.
Here's my question: at the moment the intentions of your kidnappers become clear, would you consider your fate just "one of many issues?" Or is that a classification you reserve only for the unborn? Remember, the scenario described above is the situation over 3000 defenseless babies are in - RIGHT NOW! And tomorrow, another 3000 will be thrown into that same situation, and the day after that another 3000, and another 3000 will be teed up the next day, and so on. For those babies, this is not about consistency or philosophy. It's a knife fight in a waterfront bar where they are going to be cut open alive and left to bleed out.
In their world, that is the reality of the battle over abortion.

reply from: Banned Member

So all these horrible conditions that would occur because the war does not happen are off-topic, but the opposition to the war for the sake of a consistent life ethic is on-topic?

reply from: Banned Member

If you are not born, you cannot be poor and without health care.
If you are not born, you cannot be without a proper education.
If you are not born, you cannot suffer the hardships of war.
If you are not born, you cannot enjoy the blessings of liberty.
If you are not born, you can never benefit from social justice.

reply from: BossMomma

Considering how much you idolize the killer of George Tiller and encourage people to take up arms in the matter, you have nothing at all against killing so long as the victim is born.
You are a lying pervert, and do not have a right to my opinion. I have everything against the taking of innocent life whether born or preborn, and have said so numerous times. And your word twisting butt knows that to be a fact. What I have said from the very beginning is that if it is right to use force to protect the life of the born, then simply from the position of equality, the same is true for the womb child. You would do better spending your time cleaning your house and getting help for your sexual perversion and mental confusion.
My house is clean and I am not a pervert you scanky little pro-death punk, you condone murder, like it or not Tiller had not committed a crime yet you support the vigalante that killed him. You encourage people to buy guns and ammo and insinuate that even lethal force should be used to stop abortion, you are a terrorist.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Mark says:
"If the true believers in CLE/SG have a quarrel, it should not be with me but with their own inability to police the those who manipulate it for their own political purposes."
Mark, that's exactly the point I was addressing with my original post. Those who manipulate, twist and abuse the concept of the consistent life ethic are precisely who I was quarreling with. You give me the specific name and contact information of people who need some policing, and I can call them up and have a word with them, or with the people around them that influence them. Or if it's a public forum, we can respond that way. (People who would like help on this can call me at 816-753-2057, Central Time Zone)
But another thing I can do, which would have a broader impact, is to give pro-life activists who run into this problem some advice on how to handle it. Since they generally need to handle it on the spot instead of calling on the Consistent Life Authorities (there being none), this would be among the more effective ways of going about it. So that's what I was doing.
And it it precisely because of the urgency of saving the children from being torn limb from limb that I think it's urgent that people who are advocating on their behalf have an accurate understanding. I'm not about to abandon peace-movement people to the pro-abortion philosophy because I insist on taking a single-issue approach to them when I know from experience that it is the consistent-life approach that is actually persuasive to them. We need to take a single-issue approach on those occasions that warrant a single-issue approach (which is what I'm doing now, since I explicitly didn't get into an argument about the merits of the Iraq War, despite my predilections to do so). We take a multi-issue approach in any place where that's what will reach people.
I remember for example when my co-editor and I presented on the Consistently Opposing Killing book at that Peace & Justice Studies Association conference last year. My co-editor was a peace activist of long standing and reputation, and very nervous about "coming out" as a pro-lifer in this venue. This is the kind of place where the roof falls in on anyone daring to let out an anti-abortion peep. But in fact we had an excellent discussion, because we were presenting the case to people in a way they could understand. We were helping them actually think. And the co-editor came out of the meeting feeling emboldened, which surely bodes well for his future activism.
Groups like Consistent Life are not going for the low-hanging fruit. As with pro-life feminists, we're going to the heart of where the pro-abortion philosophy finds grassroots support. We're using a lot of courage to stand up to this killing philosophy in its own den. And at the moment, we're making marvelous inroads that are going to help those babies.
That's strategically sound. Isn't it always true that the best people to talk to a group are members of that group? Doctors to doctors, lawyers to laywers, Presbyterians to Presbyterians, Catholic to Catholics, and peace activists to peace activists. We know what we're doing, Mark, and if you were inclined to be more familiar with the peace movement, you would know we're actually doing it rather effectively in exceedingly difficult circumstances. My opinion is that you should be commending us for our hard work and bravery, instead of relating us to pro-abortion people who will grasp at any straws and will do so whether we're around or not.

reply from: TomHaws

I'm hearing you. Boy am I hearing you. On the other hand, we really are trying to bring to pass a miracle. What should we expect that to demand? It doesn't feel fair, but it seems real.

reply from: TomHaws

Well let me see if I understand the advice. Tell me if this is right:
If you ask your minister to help get the congregation on the pro-life bandwagon, and he says, "Where are you when we do the pro-peace demonstrations?" the more effective answer is something like, "I'm with you in spirit, I promise. I am rooting for life in all quadrants. And I see the abortion front as an area I could contribute to in our congregation. Could we talk about effective ways to add an outreach to bring an end to abortions?"
Is that what you are pleading for?

reply from: BossMomma

u luky 2 hv huse, i hv tint, gld u no pervrt like august da homo man.
i fink u gd momie, maiby u cld tell toofy mah luva nt 2 kll mah buby dat n hr tumy.
tilr a mean man who did nastee fings to tumy bubbies.
Please write in proper English, I know you can. Reading your posts is almost mind numbing.

reply from: BillSamuel

Mark, on the point of the unborn baby who is scheduled to be torn to bits the next morning, of course the most important thing for his or her life is abortion. But if being born puts this person in the situation where she or he is about to be killed in war or starve to death because the exploitative economic situation doesn't allow food for the family, the escape from abortion will be a short-lived victory.
Think about the person in a war zone where people are dying left and right around them. War is the most important evil for them.
Think about the child who is dying a slow and painful death from lack of food. Poverty is the most important evil for them.
So, Mark, that point is true, but it doesn't seem to me to be good logic to make it an argument against the consistent life ethic.
I want the child to be born, not to be killed in war, not to die from poverty or racism, not to be killed by the state, and to live until their natural death regardless of their condition. This doesn't make me ignore the abortion issue or demand that people working against abortion work on all the life issues in order for me to cooperate with them on behalf of the unborn. I don't, for example, refuse to volunteer at my local pregnancy center (where I am a Male Presence) because a lot of those folks may not be totally against war or the death penalty. Neither do I refuse to join in a peace vigil because some of the other vigilers might be for the so-called "right to choose."

reply from: TomHaws

I think this is an important idea. We are not, after all, fighting against people at all. We are fighting against darkness and death including the darkness and death within ourselves. Will I be willing to work with myself, who am filled with inconsistency, but unwilling to work with a warrior or abortionist on life-giving fronts?

reply from: Richard

It seems to me that the misuse of the CLE/SG philosophy comes when it is used to lessen the commitment to stop some form of violence, i.e. when the consistency argument pushes in the downward direction. All the examples cited so correctly by Mark and others are of this sort. For example, that nun said in a nutshell that she was going to treat abortion in the same way the pro-lifers treated the death penalty.
She did not say "Good for you guys for opposing abortion and calling it to my attention. I'll do something decisive on that but let's also cooperate to oppose doctors getting involved in euthanasia or the administration of the death penalty" That would have been an example of consistency moving folks toward more and stronger commitments rather than weaker ones.
In the same way, if we pro-lifers want to get peace activists on our side re abortion, we should not act like the nun and say "How dare you speak out against war when you haven't said a thing about abortion!" Rather, we should argue, as Rachel suggests, ""Good for you for trying to protect innocent lives abroad! But here's another way to do the same thing right here at home, by helping stop abortion."
And this "consistency upward" approach does not imply all issues are of the same importance, just that they are related. Someone can think (as i do) that abortion is the most dangerous form of killing (not just because of the numbers but because of the intra-familial betrayal involved and especially because it is being pushed the most by opinion-makers) and yet think that the sanctity of life is also violated in a lesser way by the death penalty.
As to which issue should be paramount for each activist, that requires reflection on one's personal circumstances. If, for example, one's spouse has been murdered, it might be much more important to speak out against the death penalty than to speak against abortion; while if one openly regrets one's own past abortion, opposing abortion could be the most compelling way to stand up for life.
Bottom line: Let's praise each other for the ways we each try to protect life -- and also encourage each other to do more -- not attack each other for the many good things each of us fails to do.
Richard Stith
Valparaiso, IN

reply from: MC3

Let me repeat; even though I do not completely buy into CLE/SG, my only meaningful problem it is not with its philosophy but its application. My experience has been that, with virtually no exceptions, it is bastardized by those who have a need to disguise their pro-abortion position. Generally speaking, these people are associated with some church or Christian institution that would not find their views acceptable. Further, I have heard my observations about CLE/SG echoed by every pro-life leader with whom I have discussed the subject.
Understand, I do not say these things as a criticism of those committed to CLE/SG since, as I've made clear to Rachel, I don't think there is much any of you could do to prevent this from happening. I have little doubt that you are all smarter than me, so maybe you can find a solution. If you do, I am confident that you would find your ranks swelling.
By the way, it's nice to see you guys coming to the ProLife America Forum. I hope you all stick around and participate in the other threads as well. Just be sure to fasten your seat belts; things get pretty rambunctious around here from time to time. As I often say, this ain't no place for sissies.

reply from: RoseEvans

I am a retired special ed teacher, much concerned over the ending of the lives of disabled children before birth. I am also a consistent ethic supporter. I have found the consistent ethic to be the most effective position for changing hearts and minds to a prolife view. After all, innocent people are killed by the death penalty, by war and by poverty. When people realize that we oppose ALL violence against human life, they really listen to us consistent folks.
I hope we can all work together in harmony in defense of lives.
Rose

reply from: Banned Member

Pro-aborts already oppse the death penality. Some of them practically celebrate criminals.
Does anyone think that people are going to change their mind about abortion because you oppose the death penalty?

reply from: sander

It's near insanity.
While so many are arguing the cosnistent life ethic is the only way, more than 3,000 babies a day are being BUTCHERED in this country alone.
Wars start and wars stop, people have difficult circumstances and there are thousands of agencies and groups and religious org. that help every single day...
BUT, FOR 37 YEARS, WITHOUT STOP, WITHOUT A BREAK, WITHOUT ANY COMPASSION, MERCY OR HELP, THE BABIES HAVE BEEN BUTCHERED!
So, excuse me...but cry me a freaken river over the death penalty and wars and poverty and such....help those people yes...but to put that on the same plain as what is happening to those babies day in and day out is down right sickening.
Excuse me while I go vomit.

reply from: Banned Member

More people are dying because people are using cell phones while driving than being killed by the death penalty.
PICK A CAUSE!
No one and no one is going to give up their pro-abortion views because someone looks at you and says, 'Hey wow, you are really consistent in your ethical views! Good for you! I think I'll be pro-life now!'
Keep clicking your heels Dorothy, maybe you'll end up back in Kansas!

reply from: Banned Member

http://www.consistent-life.org/
What are we trying to achieve? A revolution in thinking and feeling, an affirmation of peace and nonviolence, an infinite gentleness, a value for the life, happiness and welfare of every person, and all the political and structural changes that will bring this about.
Pacifism is the ugly cousin of cowardice.

reply from: sander

Spitwad...you have no credibility here....my, but you must be one lonley person.
I would feel sorry for you, but you're not worth the trouble.

reply from: Banned Member

Timothy McVeigh did serve.
John Adams did not serve.
Teddy Kennedy did serve.
Benjamin Franklin did not serve.
John Kerry did serve.
Bill Clinton did not serve.
Nathan Bedford Forrest did serve.
Barack Obama did not serve.
Lee Harvey Oswald did serve.
Adolph Hitler did not serve.
What's your point Spinwiddy?

reply from: sander

You have no credibility either, CP...Mark owned you, you ducked, never answered his quesitons and act like you have an ounce of cred....
please...go back to wherever it is you go when you get owned and think enough time has passed to show up again.

reply from: Banned Member

ConcernedParent, you voted for and supported the Abortion President, Barack Obama.
You sir, like your president, are an enemy of the unborn!

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Really? He paid someone big bucks not to have an abortion, then raised that child.
What have you ever done for the unborn?
ConcernedParent then voted for Obama so that he would use my money and other peoples money to pay for other peoples abortions.
Abortion is bad for ConcernedParent but it's okay for other people. Yeah, I understand his pro-life views.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
So you've never done anything for the unborn.
I tried with everything that I had to get people to not vote for that butcher in the White House. That's one thing that I have done for the unborn. I opened more than a few eyes. I have conversed with hundreds of people online and encouraged them in their own pro-life work. I have done that for the unborn. I have raised the issue of abortion in my own community. I have done that for the unborn. Several years ago I talked a woman out of having an abortion. I have done that for the unborn. And if I have saved one human life, than I have done that for the unborn.

reply from: Shenanigans

But there will always be war and stravation and finanical woes and whatever other problem we want to throw out there. If we destory one evil perhaps we can start chipping away at another.
I don't konw what America's excuse is, they're in no war that affects teh every day Joe, they're not suffering wide spread stravation. And if there are people going hungry in the US, then shame on the US govt.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Really? He paid someone big bucks not to have an abortion, then raised that child.
What have you ever done for the unborn?
ConcernedParent then voted for Obama so that he would use my money and other peoples money to pay for other peoples abortions.
Abortion is bad for ConcernedParent but it's okay for other people. Yeah, I understand his pro-life views.
This is an example of the self righteous posturing to which I referred. It is apparently more important to some to feel that they are morally superior to others than it is to actually work together toward a common goal. Anyone who disagrees on any point is deemed "an enemy to the unborn" even if they devote their lives to preventing abortions.
You claim that I "voted for Obama so that he would use my money and other peoples money to pay for other peoples abortions," which, incidentally, also shows you to be an unconscionable liar. I clearly stated my reasons for supporting Obama during the campaign many times, and your claim could not be more untrue.
Do you know what buddy, there are people right here on this forum who are morally superior to you. There are people that have done more in their prayers than you will ever do for the unborn. There are people who have taken far more risks than you have for the unborn. There is no working with people who support abortion for a common goal. Abortion must be condemed for the evil that it is, on it's own merits! And there was never a reason to support Barack Hussein Obama Jr for president of the United States. And you sir, like your president, are a pompous pro-abortion jackass!

reply from: Banned Member

What are you Spinwiddy, but a sad unfulfilled middle aged childless woman, living on the beautiful California coast miserable inside, hanging around a pro-life forum because your extragavant sex life can't even fill the spacious voids that exist inside yourself?
You hang here 24/7 because you live such a spectacular meaningful life? Because your man understands and loves you so much that you feel the need to vent hate and frustration on complete strangers? You post here to harass the good pro-lifers that come here to share information, to harass Catholics and paint priests as child predators?

reply from: Shenanigans

Actually he did, in the trenches of World War One, but he was "injured" and was evaced from the front.

reply from: MC3

ConcernedParent:
You stated that I refused to "address the issue at hand." Can you tell me, specifically, what issue that was?

reply from: sander

If Mark's refusal to address the issue at hand constitutes "owning me," then I was certainly "owned." Were I so inclined, I could cite instances where Mark has engaged me on this forum that might go a long way toward explaining his reluctance, but I choose not to press the issue.
I respond to your drivel only to ensure that you understand that your "opinions" carry no weight with me, and your own contributions on this forum have been lackluster at best, primarily being nothing more than "trolling."
You are just one more in a long line of self righteous band wagon jumpers who, failing to understand the issues, simply align yourselves with others based on your personal opinions of people rather than allowing each point to stand on it's own merit....
You have some collasal nerve, I'll give you that, CP.
You're a pompous ass of porportions rarely seen anywhere, never mind on the internet.
You're a classic example of an ego gone wildly mad.
Get help old fellow....it's never too late.

reply from: BossMomma

LOL! Partially literate insults just give him a chubby don't they?

reply from: yoda

Well I'm going to take a totally different approach here.
First off, you're trying to mix two different subjects into one. Being prolife and endorsing the "consistent-life concept" are two different things, and neither one of them is locked to the other.
Being prolife means (by dictionary definition) that you oppose abortion (and generally that means you favor making it illegal). Like that definition or not, that's what we're stuck with, because that's how the majority of our society uses that term.
Supporting the "consistent-life concept" means many things about other subjects. One can endorse it without being prolife, and one can be prolife without endorsing the "consistent-life concept".
So, in effect you are aiding the proaborts by allowing these two concepts to be confused with each other. We do not need to defend ourselves against their charges, because that simply makes US the issue, rather than abortion.
And that's the most common tactic of those proaborts who actually engage us.... they want to make US the topic of the debate, rather than the killing of babies.
I for one will not cooperate with them.

reply from: yoda

I don't get it....... how does that make Mark's comment less true? Are you saying that a short life is just as bad as being aborted, or what? Honestly, I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, I just don't understand how you could imply that being born alive is not better than being aborted.

reply from: yoda

I think you're totally, 100% missing the whole point of this forum.
We are here to oppose abortion, not to promote or attack the philosophy being described as the "seamless garment". And questioning a prolifer's credentials over this issue is totally a proabort tactic.
They always try to change the subject to "US", rather than defend abortion.

reply from: yoda

It's worse than "putting them on the same [sic] plane".
It's actually nothing more than an effort to change the subject from the moral wrong done by abortion to "our inconsistency".
In other words, it's a simple ploy.

reply from: yoda

Exactly.
Anyone who bases their opinion on the killing of babies on their perception of how "consistent" some of us are DOES NOT REALLY CARE ABOUT THE BABIES.
The sorrow prolifers feel over the baby slaughter is why they are prolife, NOT because they "respect some people who call themselves prolife.
I've been fighting this battle for ages, when will all this phony crap be over?

reply from: yoda

Well I served, spitwaddy, and I am a registered conscientious objector.... and I agree with him.
Got anything nasty to say about me, or are you still obsessed with Augustine?

reply from: MC3

ConcernedParent,
Again, you are lying through your teeth. Just to keep the lies straight, let's deal with them separately.
YOUR STATEMENT: ...there was no "smoking gun," and the claim that PP is currently carrying out genocide against blacks is nothing but conjecture.
THE TRUTH: I never claimed to have found a "smoking gun." Moreover, as you damned well know, "smoking guns" rarely exist in the real world. In fact, people have been executed for murders in which no "smoking gun" was found and prisoners are sitting in cells all over America following convictions where no "smoking gun" was found. My assertion that Planned Parenthood has targeted the black community is not "conjecture" but a conclusion based on evidence presented in Maafa 21.
YOUR STATEMENT: You "proved" facts that have long been common knowledge...
THE TRUTH: One of the people who provided us research into this issue is a woman who has spent more than 30 years researching eugenics and has a complete library on the subject. I would put her knowledge of this issue up against anyone in the world and she has personally told me that we found material she had never heard of and did not know existed. Additionally, the issue is not how many previously unknown facts we uncovered. Raw facts are like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. The trick is to fit them together in their proper places in order to see a picture. That is what had not been done previously and what Maafa 21 does.
YOUR STATEMENT: ...every woman who aborts is free to do so or not, at her own discretion, regardless of "race."
THE TRUTH: So what? That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that black women have been disproportionately targeted. By your moronic reasoning, Bernie Madoff did nothing wrong because the people he scammed were free to invest or not invest in his Ponzi scheme. Further, you say that what we produced is "...little more than overblown propaganda..." and that it was produced with "...obvious dishonesty." If you are not the bald-faced liar I say you are, point out the specific places in this documentary where your claims can be sustained.
YOUR STATEMENT: You implied that I was incompetent to even discuss the issue, having not yet viewed your documentary. You supported this claim with an equally erroneous claim, that I had admitted I had not seen your documentary. I pointed out the fact that there was no way you could know whether I had, since I had, in fact, never made any such statement...
THE TRUTH: I never claimed that you were not competent to discuss "the issue" even though it is now clear that you are not. What I said was that you were not competent to discuss the information in Maafa 21 since you had not seen it. I admitted that I was wrong for saying that you had admitted to not seeing it, but that is clearly the case whether you have the character to own up to it or not.
YOUR STATEMENT: ...it is entirely possible to research the issue through other sources than your $20 documentary. Were this not so, your documentary could not exist, since you obviously had to do just that in order to produce it to start with...
THE TRUTH: Again, so what? What you are saying here is true about every documentary that has ever been made and every documentary that will ever be made. It says nothing about whether the information is accurate or not.
YOUR STATEMENT: If you are willing to discuss your claims, convince me....So far, I am convinced that Sanger and others were racists, and that many racists approve of the proportion of blacks who abort, but I remain unconvinced that PP is systematically targeting blacks with the purpose of carrying out genocide against the black race.
THE TRUTH: If you expect me to type in all the information contained in a documentary that lasts more than two hours, you are a bigger idiot than you are a liar.
YOUR STATEMENT: I am convinced that the facts are being misrepresented, and am less than impressed by the response, "give me money, then we'll talk...."
THE TRUTH: As I stated earlier, if you are not indeed the bald-faced liar that I say you are, tell us what the specific facts are in Maafa 21 that you say are being misrepresented? And by the way, I could not possibly care less whether someone like you is impressed or not.

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAwS0mxfSc4

reply from: faithman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oMHCGWbkwA&feature=related

reply from: faithman

Most of MAAFA can be seen on youtube. Only a secular humanist darwinist monkey boy would try to twist this into anything that it is not. This historic work puts many of the pieces together. It is simple statement of facts, placed in historic time line. The very words of people like Sanger, and their asociation with groups like the clan, and the third reich , prove their evolutionary racist bent towards eugenicly "cleansing" the gene pool. At the top of the list of "disgenic people", are those of african desent. Only a willingly ignorant fool, with a personal agenda, would ignore those facts.

reply from: BillSamuel

The consistent life ethic concept includes opposition to abortion, so you can't endorse it honestly without being pro-life.

reply from: faithman

The consistent life ethic concept includes opposition to abortion, so you can't endorse it honestly without being pro-life.
But you don't have to endorse it to be pro-life. Pro life should be about one thing only. Establishing personhood for the womb child. Anything that misdirects attention from that single issue, is a henderance. This is not about anything else accept the ones being slaughtered in the womb.

reply from: BillSamuel

I lot of people say that they favor life, but not in the case of the unborn. And then we have people who say they favor life, but only for the unborn. These seem to me to be two sides of the same coin. I say respect the life and dignity of each person in all circumstances. Violence is not a good answer to any perceived problem. No killing. No exceptions.

reply from: faithman

Then you go lay down and be a prey to evil aggression. That is your privilege. But don't expect folks with a lick of common sense to join you. It is not inconsistant to protect innocent life from evil aggression with the force nessisary to do the job. I guess your crowd would disarm the police , HUH?

reply from: leftsfoil

Women are naturally pacifistic. Throughout human history it's been the man's responcibility to fend off danger and to provide security for the tribe. It doesn't surprise me when women petition for peace because these are the conditions under which they are best able to fulfill their primary function, that of providing nurture to the family. Men must listen to the council of their women but also must remain ever vigilant, prepared and willing to respond with the necessary force to protect their charges from outside aggressors.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." -G. K. Chesterton

reply from: faithman

Exactly my point. Using force to protect the innocent is not inconsistant to to a life ethic. It is what makes said ethic possible.

reply from: BillSamuel

"For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." (1 Corinthians 1:25)
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight." (1 Corinthians 3:19)
"Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." (Ephesians 6:10-18)

reply from: yoda

That's far from being accurate. Many, many proaborts endorse all the same principles (except the prolife one, of course) that your "CLE" proclaims. Just ask them.
Wake up and smell the roses.... the issues you are speaking of are NOT bound together.

reply from: yoda

That's fine.
Just don't come here and demand that we do the same. We are here because of a common belief that elective abortion is wrong, and we do not exclude ANYONE because of their positions on other "life issues".
This forum is dedicated to saving the lives of unborn babies. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. And you will not change that fact.

reply from: yoda

Very, very well said, by both you and Mr. Chesterton.

reply from: Banned Member

Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base. All men are afraid in battle. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty. -George S. Patton

reply from: BillSamuel

Those of us who believe in the consistent life ethic (which virtually the whole Christian church held to prior to Constantine) are well used to being attacked by all sides. But we find ourselves unable to regard some human lives as expendable.
Most want to carve out exceptions. The exceptions they want to carve out vary. But to my ears, the arguments of anti-abortion people who are pro-war sound very much like those of the anti-war people who are pro-abortion. In the end, they seem to have more in common than different. Our appeal is to those ready to question the common paradigms which have gotten us in such a mess, and see things outside of the typical ideological filters. We do find increasing numbers of those.
I will say that I have run into quite a few who will re-examine their "pro-choice" views based on the approach I present who are left cold by the typical ideological right "pro-lifers." Many have not really listened to the arguments for the unborn because they seem associated with such anti-life views on other issues.

reply from: BillSamuel

Why? Does "life" refer only to those in the womb? Does "pro-life" have any relation to the definition of life? This is the heart of the revulsion felt towards traditional pro-lifers. Even in the very definition of the term, they seem to reject respect for lives of the born. The either/or paradigm between the born and unborn is false and dangerous.

reply from: Banned Member

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Is that why you've never served?
It's not like you had to work on your education or raise a family. If you had anything like a career we would have heard all about it by now.
Do you only find battle "magnificent" when other people are getting maimed and killed? Are you a coward whose fear has overcome his sense of duty?
And what have you done for your country? What if anything of use have you contributed to humanity. If the net gain of your education is to match wits with me I think that I have learned more outside the hallowed halls of formal education than you ever learned within them. To what good use have you out your education? Do you only find something interesting when I find it morally reprehensible? Are you a brazen whore who sleeps around for personal kicks rather than money? How much do you have to let your live-in partake of your germ-pot to let you stay around? I hope you can cook too, because I would hate to think that any spinless loser would keep you around for the sex alone. Otherwise you are nothing but an overly lazy sex toy with an obsene vocabulary. Better hope you keep yourself in really good shape in between all your nasty pro-abortion death posts, otherwise your man-thing might trade you in for something that looks better with its clothes off and better in bed. He sure can't be keeping you around because of your warm personality and unquestionable virtue.

reply from: sander

First of all, the whole Christian church prior to Constitine did not hold to your doctrine.
Romans 13 rebukes your theory.
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
I have no doubt you'll have a mirad of excuses why this doesn't apply, but please, spare me and take up your differences with the Word of the Living God.

reply from: leftsfoil

Hey B.S., so being weak sounds like being strong to you? Killing innocents sounds like saving the innocent? You better go check your ears B.S.
I wish you novices would resist the temptation to coin ignorant buzz words like: "pro-war". Who the hell is pro-war, B.S.?
Perhaps you are having a hard time hearing because of the location you normally keep your head.

reply from: faithman

Why? Does "life" refer only to those in the womb? Does "pro-life" have any relation to the definition of life? This is the heart of the revulsion felt towards traditional pro-lifers. Even in the very definition of the term, they seem to reject respect for lives of the born. The either/or paradigm between the born and unborn is false and dangerous.
Ya know, your hollier than thou smugness is getting a bit old. Pro-life has always been about the life of the womb child. That is where the term came from. Show one post where we disrespect the life of the born. That is a bald faced lie, and you imposing your opinion on me. You have a right to your opinion, But your snooty little arrogant @ss does not have a right to mine. I respect innocent born life enough to believe it should be protected from evil aggression. It is those who unjustly assault the innocent who do not respect human life. If you want to be a parasitic passifist puke, and live in the freedom of those who are willing to risk their own lives to repell evil aggression, that is certainly your right. But don't you think for a minute you have the right to accuse me of not respecting human life. That is simple a lie. Like I have said, if you want to go lay down somewhere and be a prey to evil doers be our guest. If you want to stand by and watch innocent people abused by evil aggression, that is also your privilage. But don't you run your mouth about those who are willing to stand between evil aggression and the innocent. All you are doing is proving what a gutless punk you are.

reply from: yoda

That's nice, but we're not debating that. We're debating your insistence that the issues be linked as if they were all the same thing. THEY ARE NOT!
Have you been to an ear doctor lately? If you can't perceive the difference between someone saying "It's wrong to kill a baby", and someone saying "It's not wrong to defend yourself, your family, and your country", then you are more than tone deaf, you are intentionally deaf.
So it's all about our personalities? The babies themselves have nothing to do with it? We must be "liked" in order to speak the truth and be heard?
If that's the case, then people like Martin Luther King and Gandhi must have been loved by everyone, right? No? But they got their points across anyway? My, it's too bad they didn't have you there to tell them how to be more popular, isn't it?
Your concern is mainly with being liked, not with telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. Your way is the "safe" way, the one that will keep you from being criticized, being physically attacked. Your way will do the babies no good.

reply from: yoda

You attack the dictionary with lies, just like the proaborts. There is NOTHING in the definition of Pro-Life that "rejects" ANYTHING!! That definition is a POSITIVE statement about what the term means, and THAT'S ALL IT IS!!
It certainly is false, because it is not there!! There is NO "either or" choice in being prolife..... THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU!!
You can be prolife regardless of your position on the other "life issues". Have you not gotten that through your skull YET????

reply from: sander

You attack the dictionary with lies, just like the proaborts. There is NOTHING in the definition of Pro-Life that "rejects" ANYTHING!! That definition is a POSITIVE statement about what the term means, and THAT'S ALL IT IS!!
It certainly is false, because it is not there!! There is NO "either or" choice in being prolife..... THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU!!
You can be prolife regardless of your position on the other "life issues". Have you not gotten that through your skull YET????
Hear, hear! Thanks Yoda....great reply!!

reply from: faithman

AGREED. That is why we refute your willing ignorance, and self imposed stupidity on a regular basis.

reply from: carolemarie

Considering how much you idolize the killer of George Tiller and encourage people to take up arms in the matter, you have nothing at all against killing so long as the victim is born.
Yep! That is the truth, Faithman is okay with the killing of those he deems disposable. He is prochoice as long as he can say who dies.

reply from: Banned Member

Considering how much you idolize the killer of George Tiller and encourage people to take up arms in the matter, you have nothing at all against killing so long as the victim is born.
Yep! That is the truth, Faithman is okay with the killing of those he deems disposable. He is prochoice as long as he can say who dies.
Carol, that just isn't true. However you and Faramir and a few other wish that this were true. A proper respect for life and ordering of ones life towards God is what Faithman is advocating. You are willing to condem people like Scott Roeder and yet you will team up with a practicing homosexual woman. BossMomma needs your prayers as much as Scott Roeder does and yet you seem only willing to pray for those you deem worthy of your prayers. Roeder seems to have had some mental issues which may have impaired his judgement but his desire to defend the unborn in noble. Pray for the man. If you are going to point fingers, point them at all the appropriate guilty sinners, not just the ones that you don't happen to personally like.

reply from: carolemarie

Faithman DOES advocate the killing of abortion providers and defends it. He is prochoice in that respect.
Bossmama was pointing out a fact that I agree with. Faithman encourages violence, which is acting in the exact opposite manner of love. We are called to love one another, not harm them
And I do pray for everyone on this board because all of you are precious to
God, even if you don't agree with me or like me.

reply from: faithman

You would be the expert. You suffer from all three. Most willingly .

reply from: sander

You are lying...
Why do you come to this board, CM? Why?
Why come here to only defend the worst of the lot, condemn those who truly work to help the babies and act the hypocrite, WHY?

reply from: carolemarie

I do pray for everyone who post here Sander.
I think that prolifers would accomplish more if they tried to reach out in love to change the law, and not be so obsessed about punishing people or making sure that those who disagree with us are called enough names.
I don't have a problem with being prolife, I do have a problem with the hate laced post that a few here like to indulge in.

reply from: sander

After you called someone a racist just because you didn't like thier response to BO's address, you have the nerve to mention "calling names"?
That's beyond the pale, CM.

reply from: yoda

Almost every single word she posts is "beyond the pale", but she just keeps on posting anyway.....
She bares her teeth towards prolifers she doesn't agree with, and throws kisses to the proaborts who spout their hatred towards babies and any who will stand up for them.
She encourages evil, she attacks those who try to fight evil.

reply from: sander

Almost every single word she posts is "beyond the pale", but she just keeps on posting anyway.....
She bares her teeth towards prolifers she doesn't agree with, and throws kisses to the proaborts who spout their hatred towards babies and any who will stand up for them.
She encourages evil, she attacks those who try to fight evil.
Truer words were never spoken.
She doesn't have a clue what it means to be pro-life...not a single, solitary clue and it's really quite sickening.

reply from: faithman

Almost every single word she posts is "beyond the pale", but she just keeps on posting anyway.....
She bares her teeth towards prolifers she doesn't agree with, and throws kisses to the proaborts who spout their hatred towards babies and any who will stand up for them.
She encourages evil, she attacks those who try to fight evil.
Truer words were never spoken.
She doesn't have a clue what it means to be pro-life...not a single, solitary clue and it's really quite sickening.
Oh now now!!! You fundie right wing freaks ned to quit picking on the only civil voice on this forum. Y any one of intelegents knows that the womb child is of less value than a woman's feelings, and if those feelings say kill the child that is of less value than said feelings, we should deal with those actions with "compassion". You just have to get it thru your head that because she has killed 3, her voice has more wieght than yours. Now yall apologize and play nice.

reply from: yoda

In other words, just drink our Obama-Aid and be quiet?

reply from: Darkmoon

So basically, prolifers can't even agree with one another.
Bonus for us.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Tom Hawes wrote:
"Well let me see if I understand the advice. Tell me if this is right:
If you ask your minister to help get the congregation on the pro-life bandwagon, and he says, "Where are you when we do the pro-peace demonstrations?" the more effective answer is something like, "I'm with you in spirit, I promise. I am rooting for life in all quadrants. And I see the abortion front as an area I could contribute to in our congregation. Could we talk about effective ways to add an outreach to bring an end to abortions?"
Is that what you are pleading for?"
Tom, I'd say you added a whole new element by having those peace demonstrations. And if you have a congregation that actually does that, wonderful! So few churches are actually active. A church that isn't apathetic is already going to be a better prospect for the pro-life message than one that is.
But of course you only say you're with them in spirit if you are. And if they're having demonstrations, and you can honestly join them, I'd say go to one. You don't have to make it a priority for your time since you want to make the pro-life cause the priority for your time. But if you go to one, you have made personal contacts with people, and you therefore have more influence.
That's separate from the issue of the consistent life ethic, however. That would be the same as going to the country fair to talk to people about abortion, and finding yourself doing the kind of things they do at country fairs in order to relate to them in a way they can understand. It's better not to do that if you hate country fairs, and leave those people that like them to do that work.
Really, this particular situation is mainly a matter of figuring out where people are coming from in order to talk to them in a way that they can understand. We have an obigation not merely to speak Truth, but to speak it in a way that the listener can hear. This involves being listeners ourselves.

reply from: yoda

In any human group of two or more people, there will be differences of opinion. Just like the proaborts disagree on lots of things.
So, your point would be.............????

reply from: yoda

It sure does. And I can't think of any reason whatsoever why this can't be done without sugarcoating the truth. You can be polite, respectful, and totally truthful at the same time. There's no need to choose between those things.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Augustine, I admire the work you're doing for the pro-life cause. If we could get more people to do half as much, we'd be in much better shape.
You say:
"No one and no one is going to give up their pro-abortion views because someone looks at you and says, 'Hey wow, you are really consistent in your ethical views! Good for you! I think I'll be pro-life now!'"
Your experience is far different from mine, and this is no mystery since you are obviously not relating to peace activists as a fellow peace activist. And while the way you say this is overdone, I have time and time again had people who softened up to consider the case against abortion on its merits for that very reason.
While it's true that staffpeople at Planned Parenthood or donors to NARAL are going to be entirely unimpressed, there are in fact huge numbers of people out there who account themselves "pro-choice" without having devoted a lot of thought to it. They think it because their social group thinks it. And the main reasoning many of them use is that the pro-life view is held by "those" people rather than "us."
Now, if you want to say that they should pay attention to truth rather than to "us vs. them," you're certainly getting no argument out of me. But of course if we were working in the world of what should be, abortion would never have even been thought of.
As for those staffpeople and donors to abortion, I assure you that they frequently will have strong reactions to the existence of the consistent life ethic. It disturbs their stereotypes, and they count on those stereotypes. They need them. They understand us to be a threat to their own prejudices. They seriously enjoy making smarmy remarks about inconsistency. We deprive them of their most bigoted remarks, and they resent it. And let us know so, right away.
This is why Mark's experience is so different from mine. I've many times been the brunt of glares and outright verbal sniping from pro-abortion people when I bring up the consistent life ethic. They know exactly what it means. It means I'm challenging them on abortion, and they don't like it.
And then those people who are "pro-choice" without having thought about it become all the more puzzled, because the pro-abortion people are not only inconsistent by favoring one kind of violence, but they're inconsistent by trying to squelch freedom of expression in forums where it's normally expected. Many's the time I've had conversations with people who were willing to look at the merits of the case against abortion based on that dynamic alone.
You're clearly not going to use this approach, Augustine, and I wouldn't expect you to. You haven't the needed skill, and your talents are best used elsewhere. All I ask is that you understand that the people using the consistent life ethic are going into the lion's den. We are the Peace Workers for Life, and I think other pro-lifers should no more disrespect us for our work than they would disrespect, say, Lutherans for Life when they have intense theological disagreements with Lutherans.

reply from: faithman

but heres the rub. You most assuredly come in here and disrespect others with your self righteous snootiness.So now you patronize one of the best posters here by acussing them of being unskilled? No one is going into your precious peace movement. So don't come in here with your obvious superiority complex, and expect us to stomach your crap.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Yodavater says:
<<"First off, you're trying to mix two different subjects into one. Being prolife and endorsing the "consistent-life concept" are two different things, and neither one of them is locked to the other.
Being prolife means (by dictionary definition) that you oppose abortion (and generally that means you favor making it illegal). Like that definition or not, that's what we're stuck with, because that's how the majority of our society uses that term.
Supporting the "consistent-life concept" means many things about other subjects. One can endorse it without being prolife, and one can be prolife without endorsing the "consistent-life concept". >>
Yodaveter, my understanding is that the term "pro-life" refers to the specific issues of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, along with related issues such as embryonic stem cell research and rationing of care that would promote euthanasia. Related topics such as racism or bigotry against those with disabilities often come up as they relate to these concerns. This is how the term "pro-life" is defined by groups that nevertheless consider themselves single-issue. The right to life -- that is, the right of innocent human beings to avoid being targeted for death because their life is deemed unworthy -- underpins the whole set.
The consistent life ethic is necessarily pro-life. It doesn't exist if it isn't. If someone says they support the c.l.e. but also support abortion, then that would be exactly the same as someone saying they're pro-life but also support abortion. There are people that do that, including Planned Parenthood staff, but they are clearly using the word to means something other than it means.
Conversely, however, a person can clearly be pro-life without subscribing to the consistent life ethic. Large numbers of people do precisely that.
People can also be peace activists and still support abortion. I would tell them they're being inconsistent. Getting all worked up about children dying in war (which is inevitable in the ways wars are currently run and involves no "defense" whatsoever) and yet saying it's OK for kids to be cut up with curettes is inconsistent. And I will tell peace activists so, and do tell them so, and I have probably done in getting myself a position in academia accordingly. But I don't tell them they're not peace activists just because they don't buy the entire consistent life ethic.
So there are many prolifers and many peace activists who don't buy the consistent life ethic. This doesn't keep them from being prolifers or peace activists. It just keeps them from being people who follow the consistent life ethic.
Let me tell everyone some of the stories that are at the foundation on how the modern term of "seamless garment" developed. Juli Loesch in the 1970s was an antinuclear energy activist who was holding houseparties where she would explain to small groups what was wrong with nuclear energy. At one she was holding forth on how radiation hurts and often kills the unborn child. A woman from the audience said, "if killing them unintentionally with radiation bothers you, what about killing them intentionally with a curettte?" Juli responds that she answered by fudging, but it got her to thinking. She thought and she thought, and she ended up founding the group Prolifers for Survival (the "for Survival" was the 1980s nomenclature for being against the arms race). The group got kicked out of the Mobilization for Survival, which was supposed to be a coalition covering everybody, because the Boston chapter sent around a letter saying that all prolifers were (I have this memorized; we set it to music): "racist, classist, misogynist anti-choice reactionaries." The Mobilization is long gone, but Prolifers for Survival turned into the Seamless Garment Network in 1987 and later changed its name to Consistent Life.

reply from: faithman

If you want to cow down to bortheads, that is your "choice". We really don't care what they think or say. We don't need your lectures. If you want to play nice with baby killers, by all means that is your privilege. Go talk all your smug little crap to them.

reply from: yoda

And how can you be sure that such "softening up" is not merely the return of courtesy for courtesy, rather than a genuine opening up of the mind?
My being an agnostic also deprives them of one of their very favorite slogans, as well. They sometimes react rather poorly to that.
But I think you are skipping over a more important point, which is that such attacks from proaborts are not for the purpose of actually changing anyone's mind about abortion, but rather to simply distract and divert our side away from any discussion of abortion. So it really doesn't matter what type of distraction they raise, the aim is the same.
That should apply equally to both sides of this disagreement equally. No sincere prolifer should disrespect the sincere efforts of any other prolifer.
If all prolifers simply marched ahead, and kept their eyes straight ahead, we would be a lot stronger.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Faithman says:
<<but heres the rub. You most assuredly come in here and disrespect others with your self righteous snootiness.So now you patronize one of the best posters here by acussing them of being unskilled? No one is going into your precious peace movement. So don't come in here with your obvious superiority complex, and expect us to stomach your crap.>>
When I said Augustine would be unskilled at talking to peace activists the way peace activists talk to each other, I understood this to be an uncontroversial point and one he would not be offended by. It's not an insult. He's made clear he has no wish to be a peace activist or to have the skills a peace activist would be expected to have. He has other skills. He is better with some audiences that I would be no good with at all.
For example, I'm no good whatsoever with audiences that can't tolerate an academic person talking the way us academic people talk. This is what comes naturally to me, and I can't be comfortable doing it any other way.

reply from: faithman

Being academic is one thing. Hiding behind it to be pretentiosly superior is quite another. A baby killer is a baby killer, and I could care less how educated they are.

reply from: yoda

I'm sorry, I just don't share your view of how words are defined. We as a society do not define words by asking various special interest groups how they would define them, we consult dictionaries, and there are very good reasons for that.
Dictionaries tell us how our society at large uses terms, not how special interest groups would like for them to be defined. And as long as we are using standard American English here, I think we ought to stick with that standard.
While such people may not use the term "consistent life ethic", they do indeed support many or even all the other aspects of that philosophy except for abortion. And to the casual observer, that puts them in the same camp as most who espouse the "consistent life ethic". Remember, most of the general public is not familiar with the details of such things, they just want a headline.
And you would probably be wasting your breath. It's probably worth a try, but most people like that simply become defensive and retreat into illogical and immoral distortions of the actual biological status of the unborn to excuse their "moral exceptions". It's not a pretty sight to see a person prostitute their intellectual honesty to support a death culture, but I see it all the time.
Exactly. So we agree that it is possible to be either a peace activist or a prolifer and not the other. Therefore, they are two different things.
That's funny. Pointing out such outrageous inconsistencies often will make enemies for you, as seems to have happened in this case.

reply from: Banned Member

Peace is a concept that that you can fight for or that you can die for.
If you don't fight for peace, very often someone else will eventually kill you to take it away from you.

reply from: yoda

Interesting example, and I would think that would be a great handicap in many situations.
Being able to put ideas, concepts, and philosophies into the vernacular is a special skill that is IMO very important, because the vernacular really is the "common tongue" that almost everyone can comprehend.
On this forum, for example, if you can't break complicated concepts down into the vernacular, you can't communicate effectively with the majority of posters here.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Yodavater says:
<<But I think you are skipping over a more important point, which is that such attacks from proaborts are not for the purpose of actually changing anyone's mind about abortion, but rather to simply distract and divert our side away from any discussion of abortion. So it really doesn't matter what type of distraction they raise, the aim is the same.>>
Of course you're right. But I again make the distinction between pro-abortion fanatics, who by definition are unreachable without an act of God (though those of course do happen occasionally), and people whose "pro-choice" position is relatively mindless. The latter group are the ones that can be worked with, and who I do work with.
And of course it takes a good long time. CLE makes no claims for being a magic bullet. But over the course of time I've seen the softening happen.
For example, at the Peace & Justice Studies Association, the pro-abortion assumptions that used to be declared within their speeches at conferences in years past are now completely gone. They've allowed Consistent Life to have a table and an ad -- these are folks that used to turn us down. They had a session a couple of years ago with several alternative views on abortion, and I was on it, making the case for a legal ban, so they now know I'm one of "those" people (prolifers) and have come to accept me anyway. They knew it took courage for me to to do this, but now progress is being made such that the closet prolifers -- and there have always been many in the peace movement, they come up and speak to me privately afterward -- will get some spine and be more likely to speak up. Some of us have blazed the trail and made it easier for them. I'm hoping for this to have a snowball effect over time.
Yodavater says:
<<That should apply equally to both sides of this disagreement equally. No sincere prolifer should disrespect the sincere efforts of any other prolifer.>>
Exactly. Thanks!

reply from: yoda

Even the most ardent peace activist cannot deny that in many cases a pacifist is forced to choose between remaining true to his/her convictions, or being killed. People like Gandhi and MLK knew that very well, and choose to risk death.
They knew that they personally probably would not enjoy "peace", but they thought that the chance that their efforts (and maybe their deaths) would promote the general cause of peace for the "rest of the world" after they were gone.
I respect them for their willingness to sacrifice in the cause of peace, but I honestly can't see where they were right. They were killed, and the level of violence in the world has not been reduced since their deaths.
Someone (smarter than I) once said "Discrimination never goes away, we just find new victims". In the case of our society, we have chosen the unborn as the "latest victim", and killed at least 50 million of them.

reply from: yoda

Sadly, we have mostly the former here on this forum.
And I'm not sure about an "act of God" (being agnostic and all), but I've come to the conclusion that none of us has the power to actually change a person's heart about abortion. I think that everyone has to have a change of heart on this subject, because the mind simply has no way to choose a side from cold logic alone. So, I try to put the truth out there, and let their hearts do what their hearts are going to do with it. Really, I don't think our personal acceptance as a "nice person" is going to cause anyone to start being repulsed by the idea of killing babies. You are either in touch with your heart, and feel shocked by that idea, or you are not.
Nothing wrong with hope. I personally hope that my proclamation of the truth as I see it will reach a few hearts eventually.
Speaking of magic bullets, I have seen magic prolife bullets. I have worked with CBR when they put their GAP on college campuses, and have seen people change their hearts simply by looking at the photos of aborted babies. I know many people are offended by their graphic nature, but to me it's well worth it to know that some people see the truth about abortion for the first time when they look at these photos.
That, to me IS a "magic bullet".

reply from: RachelMacNair

Yodavater says:
<<While such people may not use the term "consistent life ethic", they do indeed support many or even all the other aspects of that philosophy except for abortion. And to the casual observer, that puts them in the same camp as most who espouse the "consistent life ethic".>>
It is common for peace activists to point out how issues of violence are connected. That's why, when the pro-life understanding comes along, we naturally think along the lines of including abortion in. Put abortion and euthanasia in, you have the consistent life ethic. Leave them out, and you have the idea of a connected web of violence that's been around for a long, long time, and will exist whether the consistent life ethic does or not. CLE was always inevitable as soon as peace movement people got to thinking in pro-life terms.
Yodavater says:
<<Remember, most of the general public is not familiar with the details of such things, they just want a headline.>>
Don't I know it. That's why Obama is able to get away with saying no federal dollars are going to abortion in the health care plan; explaining why that's a game he's playing is more complicated and requires going beyond the headline.
By the way, to respond to other people's comments even though they weren't directed at me, I do want to make clear that there was never any possibility that I could vote for Obama. His pro-abortion position precluded it, period.
I'd also like to remind people, if they forgot from the first post, that I've spent jail time (one week and later six weeks) for protesting at an abortion clinic. I also did civil disobedience against nuclear energy and nuclear weapons, but except for one weekend never did jail time for those. The system is way more upset about interference in abortion. It's stopping violence directly; if one woman left, then that's a killing that didn't happen. The others are just a matter of expressing an opinion.

reply from: yoda

That's the kind of thing that forces proaborts into wild, outrageous fits of "counter-logic" and outright lies to justify their exclusion of abortion. And they will hate you for doing that.
I have recently seen TV ads for a group called "youth for human rights", and they have some nice ads. So I emailed them and asked them if human rights applied to all human, or just the born ones. The answer I got was a vague, thinly-disguised dodge of the question, which in itself told me what I wanted to know. They are proabort, and they don't wish to discuss abortion at all.
So far, all I can "claim" is to have been threatened with arrest, physically attacked, and threatened with attack on many occasions. It goes with the territory.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Yodavater says:
<<Speaking of magic bullets, I have seen magic prolife bullets. I have worked with CBR when they put their GAP on college campuses, and have seen people change their hearts simply by looking at the photos of aborted babies. I know many people are offended by their graphic nature, but to me it's well worth it to know that some people see the truth about abortion for the first time when they look at these photos.
That, to me IS a "magic bullet". >>
Indeed it is, and in many cases it works well. This method of opposing violence has a long history, of course, from the photo of young Kim Phuc running down the road away from the napalm in Vietnam to the photos of victims of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. For those who really don't have a clue as to what abortion is, these can be effective.
But I've also known cases where I've presented perfectly healthy baby photos and people turned their heads away and didn't look because they assumed they were the gory ones. As you say, some are offended.
At which point, I bring up those napalm, other war, and Hiroshima photos. This works very well if the offended person is sympathetic to the peace movement. They know very well we've used that tactic to great effect. I've stopped people's complaints about the gory baby photos cold, using that point.
There's a lot of unclear thinking going on, and as you say, it will take a good long time to untangle.
As for all those people on this thread who are accusing me of want to be "nice" in order to be persuasive, I repeat that when I'm challenging people on their inconsistency by opposing other violence but not abortion, they most assuredly do not understand that I am being "nice." They attack. I handle their attacks. I have a spine, and I'm trying to encourage other closet prolifers in the peace movement to develop one.

reply from: Banned Member

I don't believe that any moral inconsistancy exists between condeming abortion and the support of a justifiable war and prudent use of the death penalty.
War isn't some random act of violence. Neither is the death penalty. War is the use of force to create conditions for peace. The death penalty uses mortal punishment to protect peaceful people and as a deterrent against future acts of violence.
To somehow equate all war and every use of the death penalty with some random shooting on the street is absurd. You mis-use the violence the same that that abortion suppports distort the words, freedom and choice. It's intellectual dishonesty.

reply from: RachelMacNair

Yodavater says:
<<That's the kind of thing that forces proaborts into wild, outrageous fits of "counter-logic" and outright lies to justify their exclusion of abortion. And they will hate you for doing that. >>
Exactly. You just re-stated the point I made about me being accused of being "nice," and I like your way of saying it better than mine.

reply from: yoda

Recently I head about a county fair where they would not allow medically correct fetal models to be displayed. Even those are considered "too graphic" by the proaborts, as if gestating human life was somehow "obscene". So it isn't necessarily a mistaken idea that the photos are of aborted babies, it's just that they show something other than a "blob of tissue".
And don't forget the photos of dead baby seals in Newfoundland. That red blood really stands out on the white snow.
Yeah, that's something that makes me wonder about prolifers who complain about any tactic that they consider "too confrontational". I attended an automobile caravan "memorial protest" here in Knoxville the last two years, and it was very interesting. The organizers made sure that there were NO signs, NO photos, NO anything to physically identify the caravan as a prolife protest action. The only markings on the vehicles were the little black flags used in funeral processions. One guy with a pickup that had baby photos on the side was forbidden from driving in the caravan.
And even with all that, when the proaborts around here found out the purpose of the activity, they went out of their way to attack us. There were several nasty columns in the local paper by local "celebrity proaborts".
Just goes to show you, no matter how "polite" you try to be, the proaborts are going to attack anyone and everyone who opposes the legal status of elective abortion.
You just cannot be nice enough to avoid their ire, because it's your beliefs they are attacking, not your actions.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics