Tuesday, May 17, 2016

The Changing Pro-Life Movement

Alan (a trans) and Billie (a lesbian) showed up at the March for Life last Thursday. Alan writes:

 To the marchers, it seems, even if we're heathens, queers and humanists are allies in a struggle that transcends any lesser differences. But to the counter-protesters, we're a clear and present danger. We're evidence that this isn't just the campaign of religious patriarchy they want to dismiss it as, but a movement that can and will involve all kinds of people, and is doing so more and more every year. I think that worries them, and I think that's a really, really good sign.

The pro-life movement is still overwhelming religious and Catholic. Let's not go crazy.

That being said, there will come a time when secular people and queers will become more numerous.

And I think religious people need to prepare for that.

I don't think you can stop religious people from being religious. I think the March for Life will always have an opening prayer and a bunch of religious dignitaries on the podium.

But there may come a time when secular pro-lifers will stage their own events. ( I hope they do!) They will not ask God for his blessing. They won't play religious music. And part of their message may even be sinful or blasphemous.

We have to be prepared for that. We're not going to agree on a lot of issues.

This is one reason I have often emphasized the phrase fetal rights. That is the basis of agreement. The term "pro-life" is actually somewhat divisive when you think about it (though it's accurate.)  If you support the death penalty, are you pro-life? If you support just war, are you pro-life? If you oppose social programs, are you pro-life? If you support  non-abortifacient contraception, are you pro-life?

As a fetal rights activist I say: who cares? These issues have their importance. But we mustn't lose our focus: social recognition of the unborn as equal human beings and legal protection for them.

Social movements are made up of people who disagree on many things, but agree on the big picture. Our big picture is to end up abortion, and especially to get legislated enacted. Let's not get too bogged down by differences. It's true that the pro-life movement is one of the few remaining places where religious people can be openly religious. But for the sake of saving children, we may have to sacrifice that religious monopoly. We may have to take into account the wishes and beliefs of other people. This doesn't mean we stop being religious, but it may mean that we have to accommodate different attitudes and behaviours.

It's a matter of tolerating lesser evils to eradicate a great big one.

On ProLife "Monomania"

Steel Magnificat rags on pro-life monomaniacs:

The pro-life movement is infested with cranks who suffer from monomania. Most of us know someone of this type. When you mention that children are dying from bombings in the Middle East, they say “You know what else kills children? Abortion.” When you mention neglect in nursing homes, they say “You know who else is neglected? Unborn babies.” When you tell them that pigs suffer in gestation cages, you’re reminded about fetal suffering. When you talk about AIDS, they tell you that Doctors Without Borders is pro-choice. When you can’t take it anymore and pour yourself a soothing rum and Coke, they tell you there are human fetal cells in Pepsi. They have only one setting, and that’s not their only problem.
These monomaniacs are uniquely gullible. They are convinced that, however many lies a politician tells, the politician can be trusted if he says something against abortion. Never mind if he was saying something for abortion a year or a day or five minutes ago; if he says something even vaguely anti-abortion now, he’s their candidate. And never mind if the candidate supports the killing of any other sort of human being, far and away beyond the parameters of Just War or the principle of double effect. If he’s said anything even cursorily against abortion lately, they make excuses for him for everything else. They say that Just War is confusing so it doesn’t count. They say that torture is undefinable so it doesn’t count. They’ll ignore the Pope when he talks about any other topic. They’ll claim Muslims worship demons and that somehow makes it okay to be prejudiced against them. Forget trying to explain that, according to the Church, other forms of life have a certain dignity too and we can’t just destroy the environment and raise livestock in squalor. No other sin so much as pings on their radar. Not even the killing of children overseas; not even the killing of unborn babies when a pregnant woman is shot in a war zone or with a stolen handgun. Only the unborn killed by legal abortion count.

Fair enough. There are people like that in pro-life movement. Sometimes they are more Republican/Conservative than they are pro-life. 

Why It's Easier to Be Socially Liberal

The Theology of Dad explains why corporations are socially liberal (but it equally applies to the rest of society). Apologies to Colin for citing so much text, but it's good (and there's more in the blogpost).

It is easier to say yes than no in the modern world.

No requires an objective claim to value.

Yes simply requires any argument to relativize a traditional claim.

It is far more difficult to say why a thing is objectively morally good or bad because one has to then lay out a coherent worldview, one that is strong enough to overcome any relativizing arguments.

Yes simply requires finding one case of a short-term unpleasant outcome.

For example, to argue that homosexuality is wrong one needs to define the purpose of sex, love, and marriage. To argue that it is good you need only point to one apparent case of love between homosexuals.

This is why we have gone from approving of aesthetically hygienic presentations of same-sex relationships by Hollywood, to where we are now with carefully manicured presentations of transgenderism (i.e. Bruce Jenner), to--soon--carefully manicured presentations of polygamy and pederasty.

But surely I exaggerate, say you.

Let me respond this way: we all know it was outlandish in 1980 to assume that in 2015 transgenderism would be treated as a normal expression of healthy sexuality. What argument was able to stem the tide over those 35 years? Answer: obviously none. So what argument will be offered to suggest that polygamy and pederasty are objectively wrong? None. All that is required are a few presentations of clinically hygienic polygamists and pederasts, couples that are wealthy, attractive, apparently happy and evidently in love. Picture a young boy like Justin Bieber when he was 12 and a thin, cool, twenty-five year old. You are now sold on pedophilia.

There's a social stigma to opposing a liberal worldview. And that's a major reason some people don't oppose it. It's not that there isn't any opposition. It's that they want to keep their jobs, their friends, their status and go with the flow. Many people won't even listen to your arguments because they're led by emotion and don't know how to reason.

Monday, May 02, 2016

BOOK REVIEW: Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement Before Roe v. Wade

In Defenders of the Unborn, historian Daniel  K. Williams asks: why did the pro-life movement last so long, even as other social conservative movements faded away?

The answer lies in the fact that pro-lifers see themselves as leading a human rights campaign. This may be blindingly obvious to those inside the movement. But many on the outside still see the fight against abortion as a crusade against sexual immorality. Williams go through the history of the pro-life cause decade by decade to show that it had its origins in liberal values of defending the weak and not conservative sexual morality. 

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Links: Pro-life, Environment,Pot, Catholic Priests etc

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009. This post is from 2009, but it's still relevant and illustrates why I can't take serious any kind of environmental alarmism. The best predictor of future results is past results.

Non-Judgmental Shepherds. It bothers me that people over the age of 18 must have things this obvious explained to them. It's not rocket science:

But below the surface of a so-called “non-judgmental” person are indulgence and apathy, an inability to see evil, personal narcissism, the pathological desire to be liked, going along to get along, as long as everyone is comfortable. This is why there are so many “non-judgmental” priests, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the People of God on each of them during their seminary education, an education that should have included solid courses on logic and Catholic moral theology. To describe Jesus Himself as “non-judgmental” is not only inaccurate, it is exceedingly shallow and insulting.
Similarly, to label a priest “non-judgmental” is damning. It means he is incapable of thinking clearly, affirms his people in their moral errors, and doesn’t take stands opposing the new morality of polite secular opinion. It means he doesn’t have the courage to warn his people against the danger of mortal sin and the fires of Hell.
“Non-judgmental” clergymen do not concern themselves with lost sheep. “Non-judgmental” clerics have made their peace with evil and are comfortable with the adulation of their sheep. They are hirelings, evil shepherds and anti-Christs. (I hope I’m not missing nuances.)

'We don't play God': Indigenous communities concerned about doctor-assisted suicide:

"The worst thing we can do is start to implement a program that is designed in the city and just assume that is going to work in our Indigenous communities," he said.
Legalize euthanasia! What could wrong, what with all these suicidal aboriginals who live hundreds of miles from a hospital? I mean their body, their choice, right? It would sure solve a lot of people's problem.

Top Twenty-Five Stories Proving Target’s Pro-Transgender Bathroom Policy Is Dangerous to Women and Children. If men are allowed into women's bathroom/changerooms, it creates greater vulnerability to women. If it's already happening now, it will be easier for perverts to exploit their victims when there are effectively no gender boundaries.  

And if that's not creepy enough...in one Target store north of LA, they put urinals in a women's bathroom.

Couple Sues Abortionist Warren Hern for Malpractice in Late-Term Nightmare, He left part of the baby's skill inside the woman. UGH!!!

That'll learn us!


Here's the video:

Rallies against Bill C-14 at your local MP's office (April 27) and on parliament hill (June 1).

​When disaster relief brings anything but relief. Just send money. No one wants your old crap. Or your new crap. They don't need it.

Organized crime ‘may infiltrate’ new pot regime, internal federal paper warns. Legalize pot! What could go wrong!

"As the experiences of other jurisdictions and of the regulation of alcohol and tobacco in Canada have shown, regulating a substance does not automatically remove it from illicit markets as evidenced by importation and sales of contraband tobacco," the paper says.