I love the way you’ve labelled these guys as “fanatics” without a shred of justification. It just makes you look like the fanatic.

What’s fanatical about it?

It’s a sidebar story ergo hyperbole is permitted.

I love the way you’ve labelled these guys as “fanatics” without a shred of justification.

Restricting the right of women to have an abortion is fanatical in itself, especially when driven by religious people.

I thought that would be obvious but I suppose some people aren’t as progressive as they make out to be.

Sunny @ 4:

“Restricting the right of women to have an abortion is fanatical in itself,”

Well, we already restrict late-term abortions (and, theoretically, early abortions as well), and I don’t see any widespread demand for this to change. I suppose, then, that the whole country is fanatical.

“especially when driven by religious people.”

Why?

@ 4 Sunny

“Restricting the right of women to have an abortion is fanatical in itself, especially when driven by religious people.”

So:

1) A political stance that, from the holder’s point of view, is about protecting children is automatically “fanatical”. Interesting stance.
2) As pointed out above, everyone who isn’t in favour of eight-month abortion is, according to you, a fanatic.
3) Even if you reject (2), you’re defining “fanatic” in such a way that it covers so many people as to become essentially meaningless.

No, what this comes down to is you thinking the world is divided into “fanatics” and “people who agree with Sunny on every point”. Speaking of which…

“I thought that would be obvious but I suppose some people aren’t as progressive as they make out to be.”

Where does the concept “progressive” include the requirement to automatically demonise anyone who disagrees with you? I’d like an answer to this, please. If we’re defining “progressive” to include social issues I’d say I’m considerably more progressive than you.

There’s no-one more fanatical than a progressive.

As far as I know “fanatic” implies that the person in question is dangerously obsessed. So if being pro-life is enough to make you a fanatic, then anyone with a political opinion is a fanatic. If going to peaceful pro-life vigils makes you a fanatic, then that word can also be applied to everyone who joined in with Stop the War marches and so on – not to mention the woman in the tag photo with the rather charming “get your rosaries off of my ovaries” placard.

The problem with using up hyperbole too early is that you’ve got nothing left for when you really need it.

Using up hyperbole? Bollocks to that, there’s still the whole compulsory pregnancy = slavery (due to such practices having been a part of slavery) angle to mine yet.

I completely agree with Chaise Guevara. I can’t stand that ”everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a fanatic” kind of reasoning. Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland, and is not really a big subject here as far as I can tell. Because a majority (it seems) are opposed to it. But I don’t think it’s right to call all those people fanatics.
They just view things differently – and regard a fetus to be a child.
So they are against the killing of children (in their view).
Not fanatics, but I wouldn’t personally agree with that view myself.

Agree with Chaise and Damon here, just because someone is against babies being ripped limb from limb with a minge hoover and then flushed down the toilet doesn’t make them a fanatic.

Chaise @ 6

1) A political stance that, from the holder’s point of view, is about protecting children is automatically “fanatical”. Interesting stance.

Sure, thing. If these people want to protect children, then they should form chains around every barracks and airbase in the Country, BAE systems and the American embassy, the headquarters of every bank who hold Third World debt, the chemical industry and big oil and those clothing and electrical chains who collectively kill millions more children and unborn babies than any abortion clinic ever will.

Of course, they never appear outside these buildings? Why, because they do not give a fuck about the ‘innocent babies’ they want ‘fallen women’ punished and are anti abortion and nothing else. The fact that these nutters want to accost women in the street is what makes them dangerous fanatics.

everyone who isn’t in favour of eight-month abortion is, according to you, a fanatic.

Eh? How many of these people stand out abortion clinics in order to scream abuse at women? That will be none, then. Therefore, there are degrees between in support or disagreeing with something and fanaticism, yes? Being against the Iraq war not quite is the same as strapping a bomb onto yourself and blowing up a bus. Thankfully, there are many people who can read a blog and draw the none too subtle distinction between someone with strong views and religiously/politically driven fanatics.

Dave @ 11

Agree with Chaise and Damon here, just because someone is against babies being ripped limb from limb with a minge hoover and then flushed down the toilet doesn’t make them a fanatic.

What about screaming abuse at innocent women in the street just because they happen not to agree with you?

These chains are not protests, this is Right Wing mob rule. Who the fuck would allow these nutters to stand outside an abortion clinic? Certainly not the Right Wingers who were demanding that UK uncut should be huckled by the Junta when they protested inside Vodafone. Those people who said that such protests are a restraint of trade and therefore illegal.

No doubt Boris Johnston will have the Capitalist’s private little army out in full force defending private enterprise. Not only that, I await confirmation from the free marketers that they oppose any attempt to prevent legal operations taking place…
…Anyone?

If these nutcases want to protest, then do it in their church and allow the normal people to go about the lawful, legal business.

damon @ 10

I can’t stand that ”everyone who doesn’t agree with me is a fanatic” kind of reasoning.

Then it is a a good job that no one is employing such reasoning, then, isn’t it? No one is being condemned, merely because they oppose abortion. It is how they are doing it and the tactics used that are being condemned.

Sorry but forming chains around clinics with the intention of shaming/embarrassing women is fanatical. You can be opposed to abortion without intimidating women who choose that option. As @12 points out, these people do not give two shits about children otherwise they would be stopping the actual murder of actual people by forming chains around military bases or shouting at soldiers etc.

This is, as always, about religious lunatics wanting to control women. Plus ca change.

Jim / reduced salt

I don’t get the anger.
I don’t get why (in your view) people who don;t protest around military bases are not allowed to protest any other child issue.

> Thankfully, there are many people who can read a blog and draw the none too subtle distinction between someone with strong views and religiously/politically driven fanatics.

So this suggests your logic is that people who agree with you are just expressing ‘strong views’.
Whereas those you disagree with are ‘fanatics’

Illogical tribalism of the worst kind.

@15

Please explain why the people involved in these protests are so concerned with foetuses but not with human beings who have left the womb*. Then we can talk.

[*I’ll give you a clue – they’re not. They just hate women’s choice in sexual/reproductive freedom.]

Jim @ 12:

Good point, although what I’d really like to know is why people who get concerned with inequality don’t give all their possessions to starving Africans. After all, even people who would be considered quite poor in this country are actually rather rich by international standards. So why don’t they try and reduce global inequality? Clearly they don’t care about inequality, just about punishing people who dare to be richer than they are, so we can dismiss their claims… [etc. ad nauseam.]

1) A political stance that, from the holder’s point of view, is about protecting children is automatically “fanatical”. Interesting stance.

You believe that guff? Damn. and you’re waving your progressive credentials at me?

the people who proposed segregation in the US south also wanted to protect their children. You’d have endorsed that too?

Let me re-state it for you.

Restricting the right of all women not to have any abortions at all IS fanatical. If you think that’s extreme then you’re in the minority not me.

Where is the majesty of the law in all this?

If people choose to bully, harass, cause distress and alarm to a chunk of the populace going quietly about it’s business, they can surely be dealt with under the legislation covering harassment and public order offenses.

A few fines, injunctions and imprisonments would do much to calm their ardour.

@ 18 Sunny

“You believe that guff? Damn. and you’re waving your progressive credentials at me?”

I believe that they believe it. Hence “from the holder’s point of view”. Please at least try to read my post before replying.

“the people who proposed segregation in the US south also wanted to protect their children. You’d have endorsed that too?”

Um, what am I supposed to be endorsing here?

“Let me re-state it for you.”

You mean “shift the goalposts”.

“Restricting the right of all women not to have any abortions at all IS fanatical. If you think that’s extreme then you’re in the minority not me.”

No, it’s not (see above my post about the meaning of the word “fanatical”. It’s not identical to “wrong”).

And who gives a damn who’s in the minority? As it happens, I expect that most people would NOT call all pro-lifers fanatics, but that would be nothing to beat you around the head with even if proved true. What you’re doing here is called “appeal to majority”, and it’s a logical fallacy.

If you’re thinking of my remark about you defining “fanatic” to include about half of the human race, my point (as I said quite clearly) was that the word loses all meaning if you do that. Not that any group containing 51%+ of humans is right by default.

This is weak, Sunny. A couple of straw-man attacks, an argumentum ad populum, and you’ve ignored my question: the one I specifically asked you to answer.

@ 12 Jim

“Sure, thing. If these people want to protect children, then they should form chains around every barracks and airbase in the Country, BAE systems and the American embassy, the headquarters of every bank who hold Third World debt, the chemical industry and big oil and those clothing and electrical chains who collectively kill millions more children and unborn babies than any abortion clinic ever will.

Of course, they never appear outside these buildings?”

As I’ve said before, you just assume all this. I’ve yet to see you demonstrate that pro-life campaigners are never also anti-war campaigners (well, that would be impossible to prove, but you could at least provide some basis for the claim).

But even if true, people do often get hooked onto one or two key issues to the detriment of others. And yes, that’s often inconsistent if not outright hypocritical: people are not perfectly logical machines. But it doesn’t actually show that their motives for supporting the causes they DO support are false. Now, if you could show that most of these people call for the deaths of innocents in other areas, THAT would call their motives sharply into question.

“Eh? How many of these people stand out abortion clinics in order to scream abuse at women? That will be none, then. Therefore, there are degrees between in support or disagreeing with something and fanaticism, yes? Being against the Iraq war not quite is the same as strapping a bomb onto yourself and blowing up a bus.”

Quite. So where does forming a chain and holding a placard sit on that continuum? Read the OP again: that’s the ONLY detail of these “vigils” we’re given.

The fact that there are degrees between supporting/disagreeing with something and fanaticism IS EXACTLY MY POINT. Look at my first post: “I love the way you’ve labelled these guys as “fanatics” without a shred of justification. ” As far as I’m concerned, peaceful protest is not fanatic.

Screaming abuse? That’s a lot more like fanaticism. If Sunny had shown us some pro-lifers acting that way and called them fanatics, I would have agreed, and told him he could add the term “wankers” while he was at it. But he didn’t: we’re expected to agree that they’re fanatics simply because they are pro-life. And of course many pro-lifers would say the same about pro-choicers, and the whole merry process of demonising your opponents and making it impossible to have a mature conversation can go on and on and on, till the end of time. Wonderful. Look at what Sunny’s doing now: as far as I can make out he’s claiming I’m pro-life and thus would “endorse” racial segregation, of all bloody things.

“Thankfully, there are many people who can read a blog and draw the none too subtle distinction between someone with strong views and religiously/politically driven fanatics. ”

You didn’t read the blog, apparently, seeing as it includes none of the charges you list against the protesters. Right now you’re reminding me of people who try to dismiss anti-cuts protesters by pretending that they’re all anarchists out to cause trouble.

@ 19 Franklin

“Where is the majesty of the law in all this?

If people choose to bully, harass, cause distress and alarm to a chunk of the populace going quietly about it’s business, they can surely be dealt with under the legislation covering harassment and public order offenses.”

If they DO bully or harrass other people (causing distress and alarm being in the eye of the beholder) then the law can and should step in. If they just wave placards, as the OP says is the plan, then the “majesty of the law” will thankfully come down on the side of freedom of expression. Which may annoy you now, but you’ll be grateful for it when it’s people supporting *your* cause who aren’t being jailed simply for stating their political opinion.

Freedom of expression is for everyone, or it doesn’t exist.

I agree with Sunny… SPUC are fanatical. They want to outlaw abortion in all cases including where the woman/girl was raped. This investigation by the Guardian shows what they told secondary school children:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/23/abortion-what-children-schools

Including telling children that if a raped girl or woman became pregnant by her rapist, and were to keep her baby, then “something positive comes out of that whole rape experience.”

They also spread lies about the safety of abortion in terms of mental and physical health, telling people (again including schoolchildren) that it increases the risk of breast cancer and mental illness when neither is the case.

They also want to ban the morning after pill, want to discourage condom use, and are against comprehensive sex education. They favour an abstinence-only based approach which has been shown to be less than useless in preventing unwanted pregnancy and STIs.

Therefore while they claim to be against abortion, they are also against the very things that would prevent many abortions happening, namely sex education and increased access to contraception.

So yes they are fanatics. They have a very extreme view. They are dangerous, because they make up lies about abortion and present them as fact (and are bizarrely allowed in schools to do so), because they want to take women’s control of their own bodies away.

If SPUC got their own way, women would have no rights at all in terms of controlling their own reproductive health. They might look harmless (‘ah they just want to protect babies!’ etc) but they are not. Whatever happens on these ‘vigils’, whether it’s peaceful or violent, they are a fanatical group. They are extreme, they are obsessed, they are resistant to evidence or reason.

@ 23 Violet

To be fair, I wouldn’t call that “fanatic” so much as “stupid”, in terms of abstinence-only education and so on. Holding a view doesn’t make you fanatic, it’s how obsessed you are about that view and how you go about expressing it. I recognise that people can be fanatical about views I agree with.

(As for “extremist”, that’s very much a subjective thing, but personally I wouldn’t use it to describe a fairly mainstream view.)

Still, thanks for actually justifying your statements; it’s more than Sunny is capable of in one article and two follow-up comments, apparently.

despite Chaise Guevara’s attempt to define terms ,another potentially good debate runs off the rails.
The central issue for me relies on the fact that these people believe in the supernatural and worship made up entities that arent really there.
The issue then becomes how the state incorporates and legitimises these views, for example by giving access to children through the education system and overlooking public order excesses not enjoyed necesasrily by other groups.
This sadly isnt just an abortion issue.This is part of the deepest cancer in our society; that of religion.Is there any room for name calling? I dont think so.

@ 25 MoCO

I’d say the biggest cancers of our society are selfishness, callousness and irrationality – although in fairness that’s religion covered under the latter.

We definitely have a problem with the state holding religious views as equal or even superior to evidence-based views when determining policy; the majority of state schools STILL spend learning time on worship, for goodness’ sake. Of course, I’m not sure how to reconcile evidence-based policy with democracy.

@24 Chaise:

Perhaps we may have to agree to disagree about the meaning of the term ‘fanatic’… for me, if an organisation is so obsessed with the ‘rights’ of a blastocyst/embryo/fetus that this leads them to make light of rape and its after-effects (just as one example), even in the case of the sexual abuse of a young girl (see below) there is no other word to use.

Nothing else matters to them apart from the completion of pregnancies and I would call that an obsession.

The way they go about expressing their views may not be violent most of the time (although harrassing women at abortion clinics is a form of violence in my opinion) but they are still pursuing an extreme aim (the outlawing of abortion, most contraception, and sex education). They are clearly fine with misrepresenting scientific findings, and in many cases making up lies and attempting to pass them off as medical facts.

The fact that many of their claims (such as the one about abortion’s effects on mental health) have been thoroughly debunked doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to them, and the fact that their views are resistant to evidence is another reason to call them fanatical in my opinion.

In any case, SPUC’s view is not mainstream. The majority of people in the UK support a woman’s right to choose, and those who don’t usually make an exception in cases of rape or threat to the woman’s health. You’d also be very hard pushed to find many people who want to outlaw contraception.

I suppose I call their view ‘extreme’ because I think about the consequences if their ideology was ever made law (which is what they want, ultimately). Our society would look very different, and for women, quite scary.

I think about girls such as the nine-year-old in Brazil raped and impregnated by her stepfather – the doctors who performed an abortion were excommunicated by the Catholic Church, as were the girl and her family:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

The CEO of SPUC, on his blog, writing about this case, stated that: “Let’s remember the real issue. The fundamental issue for humanity is that two babies have been killed: the right to life of the twins in the womb of this poor Brazilian girl has been denied.” The ‘real issue’.

He also attempts to smear the doctor who performed the abortion on the girl, saying that he is “strongly pro-abortion and opposes church teaching”:

http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/doctor-in-abortion-of-nine-year-old.html

And SPUC are not extreme or fanatical?

Apologies, I meant to add in the link where SPUC’s CEO talks about the ‘real issue’ in the raped nine-year-old’s case, so here it is:

http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/2009/03/nine-year-olds-abortion-real-issue.html

@12 What about screaming abuse at innocent women in the street just because they happen not to agree with you?

Yes that fanatical, same as skinning the women alive, wearing their skin to commit mis-deeds and then sewing their skin back onto their bodies in order to sully their reputation.

Doesnt add much to the argument though

MCO @ 25:

I’m surprised you didn’t go the whole hog, and call for State repression to cut out this filthy cancer from our society. No doubt someone will be along to say that, though.

Chaise @ 26:

“I’d say the biggest cancers of our society are selfishness, callousness and irrationality – although in fairness that’s religion covered under the latter.”

Well, there have been a couple of ration theists over the ages, so not really.

“We definitely have a problem with the state holding religious views as equal or even superior to evidence-based views when determining policy;”

Well, when it comes to abortion, there’s no real dispute about whether/how it can be carried out, so I’m not sure what evidence-based (I presume you mean “scientific evidence”) policy would have to say on the matter. Surely the issue is whether it *ought* to be carried out, in which case you look at people’s moral views on the matter — and yes, that includes moral views that come from religion.

@ 29 P Ve M

“Well, there have been a couple of ration theists over the ages, so not really.”

I only put that thing in about rationality/religion to signal agreement with MoCO. You’ve got every right to debate it, and I’ve got a lot to say on the matter, but I’d rather not derail the thread into a tangetial argument in which neither of us is going to win the other over. Would you accept me revising that to “*in my opinion* religion is covered under irrationality”, for the sake of the thread?

“Well, when it comes to abortion, there’s no real dispute about whether/how it can be carried out, so I’m not sure what evidence-based (I presume you mean “scientific evidence”) policy would have to say on the matter. Surely the issue is whether it *ought* to be carried out, in which case you look at people’s moral views on the matter — and yes, that includes moral views that come from religion.”

Absolutely. I was thinking more about things like ab-only sex ed. Scientific evidence is relevant to abortion, but only in how it informs the moral debate (there are some scientific cheats carried out by both sides); we’re not going to get from directly from “is” to “ought” in this issue or any other.

Chaise @ 31:

“I only put that thing in about rationality/religion to signal agreement with MoCO. You’ve got every right to debate it, and I’ve got a lot to say on the matter, but I’d rather not derail the thread into a tangetial argument in which neither of us is going to win the other over. Would you accept me revising that to “*in my opinion* religion is covered under irrationality”, for the sake of the thread?”

Sure thing.

“Absolutely. I was thinking more about things like ab-only sex ed. Scientific evidence is relevant to abortion, but only in how it informs the moral debate (there are some scientific cheats carried out by both sides); we’re not going to get from directly from “is” to “ought” in this issue or any other.”

Even in the case of ab-only sex ed, evidence-based policy only makes sense if you think that the state (at least when it comes to sex ed) ought to operate on an essentially utilitarian policy. Personally I think that this view has a lot to recommend it, but it’s still ultimately a moral view, so I think that the division between “evidence-based” and “faith-/morality based” policy making is something of a falso one.

JV @ 15

I don’t get why (in your view) people who don;t protest around military bases are not allowed to protest any other child issue.

They (and their useful idiots) call themselves ‘Pro life’; such a nebulous term for such a narrow agenda. There are countless ways that children are killed on this planet. Bombs, pollution and starvation kill thousands children every week. More children have died in countless wars, mass starvation, drought or pollution. Yet the ‘pro life’ people never campaign against such people or organisations. We could save millions of children’s lives simply by spending a small percentage of the arms budget on decent irrigation systems throughout the World. Millions more could be saved by cancelling third World debt. The do not campaign for life, in fact there is a huge and unsurprising overlap in the pro lifers and the pro death penalty people. They don’t love children in fact, they fucking despise children, it is the punishment of women they want.

When I see ‘pro life’ fanatics campaign against the real killers of children around the World, then perhaps I will concede they are ‘pro life’.

So this suggests your logic is that people who agree with you are just expressing ‘strong views’.
Whereas those you disagree with are ‘fanatics’

Why do we need to return to some kind of year zero at every turn? Why is that that every debate has to start with a clean slate and then work to a position of common knowledge?

Not everyone who is against abortion is a fanatic. My partner is anti abortion but it is not an all-consuming passion of hers. She manages not to attack innocent women who attend abortion clinics, etc.

Millions of people opposed the Iraq war. Most shrugged their shoulders and got on with it and some went on marches, others vowed to never vote Labour and yet some took action including reading out the names of the dead.

A few, however, took to the streets to hurl abuse at returning soldiers and denounced them as murderers.

And you cannot distinguish between people with ‘strong views’ and the ‘fanatics’?

“Millions more could be saved by cancelling third World debt.”

Actually, the churches and Christian charities were amongst the first to campaign on debt forgiveness, before it was fashionable. Also, much as Sunny seems determined to import the American culture wars, wholesale, religious people in the UK are more likely to be on the political left:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/08/religious-people-more-likely-leftwing-demos

@ 32 P Ve M

“Sure thing”

Cheers!

“Even in the case of ab-only sex ed, evidence-based policy only makes sense if you think that the state (at least when it comes to sex ed) ought to operate on an essentially utilitarian policy. Personally I think that this view has a lot to recommend it, but it’s still ultimately a moral view, so I think that the division between “evidence-based” and “faith-/morality based” policy making is something of a falso one.”

Oh, no disagreement there. I was talking about when both sides have already accepted (or claim to accept) that what matters is preventing STDs and teenage pregnancy, then the ab-only guys swear blue in the face that their method is most effective at doing this when the numbers state otherwise.

The most farcical (and sadly common) version of this is for the ab-only people to smugly declare that abstinence is 100% effective. Which it is (nit-picking aside), but we’re not debating abstinence vs non-abstinence, we’re debating abstinence-only sex ed vs comprehensive sex ed. The problem with ab-only sex ed is that the students often don’t abstain, and when that happens they’re poorly prepared to be safe (or, in extreme cases, have been actively sabotaged by people telling them that condoms don’t work anyway).

So if preventing teen pregnancies and STDs is the desired outcome, comprehensive sex ed wins. Obviously someone could still logically come down on the side of ab-only if they use different criteria, e.g. if they think condom use is inherently evil and that this outweighs the collateral damage of teenagers getting pregnant or unwell.

I’m not sure what the point of this is. Yes they’re views on abortion are fanatical but let them protest and have their vigil because largely they’re an irrelevance.

Chaise @ 35:

No disagreements there. 😉 Although ISTM that a lot of the abs-only people think that teaching children how to use condoms (or whatever) is wrong for reasons similar to the one you mentioned (condoms are bad), but because a lot of people don’t agree with them, they feel they have to pretend it’s for another reason entirely. Hence they, like most people who do this, end up looking pretty silly.

Jim @ 33:

“They (and their useful idiots) call themselves ‘Pro life’; such a nebulous term for such a narrow agenda. There are countless ways that children are killed on this planet. Bombs, pollution and starvation kill thousands children every week. More children have died in countless wars, mass starvation, drought or pollution. Yet the ‘pro life’ people never campaign against such people or organisations. We could save millions of children’s lives simply by spending a small percentage of the arms budget on decent irrigation systems throughout the World. Millions more could be saved by cancelling third World debt. The do not campaign for life, in fact there is a huge and unsurprising overlap in the pro lifers and the pro death penalty people. They don’t love children in fact, they fucking despise children, it is the punishment of women they want.”

Most Churches are pro-life, and also carry out various charitable activities, including the sorts of things you mention.

Also, if you’re going to bring up the death penalty, I’d like you to give me (a) evidence that pro-lifers are more likely to support the death penalty than pro-choicers, and (b) a reason why executing a murderer is as bad as killing a child.

@ 37 P Ve M

I suspect you’re right. Best argument I’ve seen so far is that condoms are porous and let the AIDS in! That was from the same site that said evolution was racist.

@Antiabortionists

I understand the religious pro-life movement has come to America.

A little background for you. Here in America, the pro-life movement is a terrorist movement.

We’ve had thousands of terrorist incidents including the stalking of patients and providers, intimidation & scare tactics, bombings, arsons and actual murders. All in the name of the religious position that; “a fetus is a person.”

So yes. They are fanatics. And you anti-abortion “pro-life” folks in the U.K. are joining a fanatical movement with its roots in terrorism.

This terrorist behavior in the U.S. rarely gets any media attention because it is Christian terrorism and America pretends that Christians cannot be terrorists.

Notice how you use hyperbole such as; “ripping limbs” or word interchange such as; “baby” for “fetus”.

All this is done to evoke an emotional response. Why? Because the pro-life position is a position of fanaticism. It is not based in fact, it is based in belief. So the only way to overcome the opposing side is with exaggerated hyperbole and grandiose displays based in extreme emotional outbursts.

That’s why you get men like Scott Roeder who shot and murdered Dr. George Tiller.

Scott Roeder abandoned his family, his wife and two children, so he could join
Operation Rescue to “save children” (yes, he was a member. There’s photographs of him sitting with the head of operation rescue on multiple occasions).

That’s the kind of logic you get from the anti-abortion position.

So don’t fool yourself. The U.K. movement is backed by these fanatics. This is what you’re inviting into your country.

correction; “Come to the U.K”. – not America. We’ve had them for decades.

Pooka @ 39:

“So yes. They are fanatics. And you anti-abortion “pro-life” folks in the U.K. are joining a fanatical movement with its roots in terrorism.”

Surely that ought to be “joining a movement, some members of which are fanatics and terrorists”? The two aren’t quite the same, and anyway, if you judged movements by their most extreme and unpleasant members, you’d have to conclude that the British left is made up of anti-Semites and Stalin apologists.

“All this is done to evoke an emotional response.”

As is the use of phrases such as “trying to control women’s bodies” or “hating women’s reproductive freedom”. So what?

“It is not based in fact, it is based in belief.”

As is the pro-choice position.

@ 41 P Ve M

“Surely that ought to be “joining a movement, some members of which are fanatics and terrorists”? ”

Pooka has a big brush, and he’s not afraid to tar you with it!

Pooka

> We’ve had thousands of terrorist incidents including the stalking of patients and providers, intimidation & scare tactics, bombings, arsons and actual murders. All in the name of the religious position that; “a fetus is a person.”

Can you provide a source for ‘thousands’ and for how many actual murders per year?

> This terrorist behavior in the U.S. rarely gets any media attention because it is Christian terrorism and America pretends that Christians cannot be terrorists.

Wow that’s some conspiracy theory there.
The same America that manages to indite it’s own presidents, has chosen collectively to hush up something you call ‘christian terrorism’.

You do hate christians a whole lot, don’t you?

Jim

ah, the plot thickens.

> Not everyone who is against abortion is a fanatic. My partner is anti abortion

Aha!
So you do accept it is an entirely logical, sensible position that a rational person can hold?

> but it is not an all-consuming passion of hers.

Ah – so in your book – it is a rational, logical position that must only be held ‘quietly’.

Whereas your view – pro-Life, you think is allowed to be held publicly, and with emotion.
Your threads on here suggest it is an ‘all-consuming passion’ of yours!

Talk about double-standards!

@41 P Ve M:

It is not ’emotional’ to say that SPUC want to control women’s bodies. SPUC want to outlaw abortion, therefore making women legally required to carry a pregnancy to term (or as far as it ‘naturally’ gets), even if she has been raped, even if her life is in danger.

If this is not control of women’s bodies then I don’t know what is.

The pro-choice position moreover is not ‘based in belief’. For example, it is a fact that a fertilised egg doesn’t have a brain or a nervous system and therefore cannot feel pain or suffer in any way – and yet SPUC see a fertilised egg as morally the same as a fully-formed human being. That’s why they’re against the morning-after pill as well as abortion. I’ve never seen them consider any real scientific evidence about when fetuses could begin to suffer – that’s because they don’t care about evidence. Their position is based in belief.

That’s why they don’t care about misrepresenting research and making up lies.

‘Life begins at conception’, one of SPUC’s favourite phrases, is a nonsense. It’s not as though dead cells randomly bump into each other and magically come to life: a sperm is alive, an egg is alive.

Here is a biologist to explain:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/the_fertilized_egg_is_not_a_hu.php

In any case, when deciding whether this organisation are extreme, think about the kind of society we would be living in if they got their way. Would it just be another version of what we have now, or would it be radically different?

Would we be seeing this happen, in the UK?:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/feb/23/nicaragua-cancer-treatment-abortion

Pooka @39 is right to warn us, not least because SPUC is partially funded by money from the American religious right:

http://feministactioncambridge.wordpress.com/activist-resources/

@ 45 Violet

“It is not ‘emotional’ to say that SPUC want to control women’s bodies. SPUC want to outlaw abortion, therefore making women legally required to carry a pregnancy to term (or as far as it ‘naturally’ gets), even if she has been raped, even if her life is in danger.

If this is not control of women’s bodies then I don’t know what is. ”

Accuracy is not the opposite of emotion: a single statement can have both, or neither. “Control of women’s bodies” is hardly hyperbole, but it is phrased in such a way as to get an emotional response. Someone who was going out of their way to cover abortion in a non-emotive way would not use the phrase. Similarly, saying that aborted foetuses are “killed” is accurate, but is more emotive than “terminated” – and pro-lifers often get criticised for appealing to emotion when they use the former.

“The pro-choice position moreover is not ‘based in belief’.”

It really is. Pro-choice is a moral position, and ALL moral positions are based in belief. It’s called the is/ought gap: you can’t get from saying “this is” (factual) to “you ought” (moral) without making a declaration, somewhere along the line, of what’s right and what’s wrong. Not that fact doesn’t enter into it, of course: if someone claimed that condoms cause abortions, for example, they’d just be factually wrong, and any of their moral musings on the subject could be dismissed as irrelevant.

Basically, every one of your statements about abortion could be 100% correct, but without belief you wouldn’t be able to conclude: “…and therefore outlawing abortion is wrong.”

Claiming that your moral belief is not a belief is cheating, it’s a bit like saying “I’m right because I’m right because I’m right”. We had a similar case recently when a libertarian dismissed all non-libertarian views as being subjective, but had convinced himself that property rights (i.e. the ones HE supported) were objectively real. I support abortion on demand, but I don’t think it can be justified by special pleading.

@Chaise: Shut the fuck up you far-right UKIP voting nutter.

Chaise Guereva – Pro-Rape, Pro-Racism and Pro-UKIP.

Ban this nutter from your site.

@ 49 Chaise,

(skipping past your admirer!)

“We had a similar case recently when a libertarian dismissed all non-libertarian views as being subjective, but had convinced himself that property rights (i.e. the ones HE supported) were objectively real.”

I think this is a reference to me. That is not the case at all. What I said was that morality is subjective, but that property rights were objective, because it could be objectively ascertained who something belonged to, and that I thought the law should not be used to enforce morality, but only property rights. I remain convinced that defending property rights is a far better basis for a system of law than upholding morality. As a for instance, I’d far rather argue that this computer I’m sitting at is mine, because I can prove (objectively) that I bought it with money I earned legally, from a reputable seller, than that I have some kind of moral right to it.

BTW Chaise, I agree with your jumping off point in this argument.

I’m only thankful that Sunny has left Nadine Dorries out of it for once.

@ Trooper

The issue, as I recall it, was that you were saying that property rights were somehow more definitive than, say, human rights, because they were objective. While they can be objectively *defined* (as you demonstrate above) they are not objectively *true* (e.g. the provable fact that you bought the computer does not, objectively, make it yours or mean that it’s right that you have it).

So my point is that you can very neatly define property rights, with the result that there is less room for debate than in most other moral spheres once the rules have been made. But first you have to subjectively agree “it is right that people should be entitled to keep what they earn/buy/create” and subjectively set any limitations to that (can we demand taxation, can I claim rights to land just by getting there first, can I pass on my rights after death etc.)

Incidentally, I didn’t mention this in my post to resurrect the argument and certainly not to snark at you. It was just a readily available example of the same issue occuring in a topic that I hoped would be treated as relatively neutral by Violet.

@ 48 ffff

I’d ask you to back up your assertions, but you’re obviously either a troll or a fucking fruit loop, so I assume you won’t or can’t.

It has always been the case that one person’s fanatic is another’s saviour and I tend to agree that pro-life groups should be free to campaign, although targetting women who are entering abortion clinics is likely to cause personal distress. Most women who are choosing abortions are not acting ‘freely’, I am sure that most would prefer to have avoided the pregnancy in the first instance.

But those who campaign against the pro-life stance and who claim to be ‘rational’ by denigrating those with religious views are, themselves, failing to propose a rational argument. The right to choose sounds nicely liberal but, as TT proposes, it can be interpreted as subjective.

IMO, the most relevant counter argument to pro-life campaigners is whether banning legal abortions actually saves lives, for example, WHO propose that 68,000 women die each year from unsafe abortions. Although this figure includes poor medical treatments for women in developing countries, it doesn’t represent the number of succesful illegal abortions, which fail to make the statistics.

It’s difficult to avoid morality and subjectivity in all debates about the individual and society but presenting evidence is usually the left/liberal way, calling people ‘fanatics’ belongs to the right.

JV @ 44

So you do accept it is an entirely logical, sensible position that a rational person can hold?

What on Earth are you talking about? My partner disagrees with abortion. If she ever found herself in a position where she had an unplanned pregnancy, she would not consider an abortion. That is a perfectly logical, sensible position that a rational position to hold. She does stand outside abortion clinics and hurl abuse at women that want abortion. Standing outside abortion clinics hurling abuse at women who enter is not a logical, sensible position to hold. That is the act of a fanatic. Therefore I conclude she is not a fanatic.

Talk about double-standards!

What double standard is that? If a woman finds herself pregnant although she never intended to be, she wishes to carry that child to full term. I would support that choice. I would support that woman if she chooses to have an abortion as well.

I would not support a crowd of fifty or sixty people turning up at the pre natal clinic to hurl abuse at the former for having the courage to go through with the pregnancy.

I find that entirely consistent. Why do you think there is a double standard there?

@ Chaise,

“I didn’t mention this in my post to resurrect the argument and certainly not to snark at you.”

I’m sure that is true, but I couldn’t let it lie!

@ 55 TT

Fair enough! No criticism here, I’d have done the same. Just making sure you’re aware I wasn’t attempting a drive-by snark attack.

I saw the Farnham lot the other day and just felt really angry. Ignorant, misguided people. Their posters just said “abortion steals lives”. Great argument there…we hadn’t realised that embryos can become human…thanks.