Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on A P.S. Re: the Faith Forum

1

You almost made it. So close to posting a balanced critic of both candidates, but it was just too much. You had to go be a "journalist" and post a dig at Obama.

Well done!

Posted by Jeff | April 14, 2008 12:34 PM
2

a) What do abortions in cases of rape/incest or to save the life of the mother have to do with interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies?

b) Pro-life activists do express interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Yes, the method they want to use (abstinence) is completely unworkable and unreasonable. But it is not fair to say they want women to be nothing but baby factories.

c) ECB, why must you sound so completely frigging insane on this topic? I generally agree with you on pro-choice issues, but when you sound like a stark-raving loon, it undermines your arguments.

Posted by Providence | April 14, 2008 12:38 PM
3

Way to make that whole post pointless and useless by calling those you disagree "terrorists".

Posted by steve | April 14, 2008 12:41 PM
4

I don't think it's true that they have *no* interest in reducing unwanted pregnancy; it's just that their other beliefs trump that interest. They're generally against nonprocreative sex and they think that offering contraceptives would be wrong, even if it reduced unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

Posted by julia | April 14, 2008 12:42 PM
5

BTW, there are new poll numbers out today, and they're not good news for The Big O. 20% HRC lead in PA, 10% in IN.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | April 14, 2008 12:43 PM
6

i think they just want people to get married and live out their pre-defined roles in society, as determined by their gender. that's their big thing. do your part for the greater good: get heterosexual-married.

hello, who needs contraception if your married? teens shouldn't be having babies, why? can't get married. gays shouldn't get AIDS because they shouldn't be having sex because can't get married et cetera.

so in summary, if you can get married, you should. especially if you want to have sex. because for married people there is no such thing as an unwanted pregnancy. see how that works?

Posted by brandon | April 14, 2008 12:43 PM
7

Terrorist? You've gone off the deep end, ECB.

And how does your pro-choice stance jive with Clinton's completely nonsensical statement: "I believe that the potential for life begins at conception"

The potential for life? What the fuck does that even mean?

Posted by w7ngman | April 14, 2008 12:45 PM
8
If the pro-life movement had any interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, they would support things like universal health care, contraception, abortion for survivors of rape and incest, abortion to save the life of the mother, and emergency contraception.

Aaaaaand ... here's where you blow it. In fact, this post inadvertently winds up being an argument for how Democrats/progressives are out of touch with the religious. Maybe in the Bible Belt towns you grew up in, religion was strictly about right-wing politics, but Rust Belt Catholics, for example, are not unlikely to be both pro-life and in favor of universal health care. It's not nearly as simple as you paint it here.

Posted by tsm | April 14, 2008 12:46 PM
9

Good overall analysis of the lingering pro-life/pro-choice divide, but you leave out one important contributor to why pro-lifers have "no interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies". It's not so much all unwanted pregnancies as it is un-married women with unwanted pregnancies. I've known plenty of Christian married couples who used birth control, and I even know married Christian men who've had vasectomies - the evangelical church is oddly silent when it comes to married couples and birth control, but if you start talking about birth control for un-married folks, they're militantly against it and say "well, they shouldn't be having sex outside of marriage." If they insist on clinging to such a naive perspective (and they do), I doubt the gap will ever be fully bridged.

Posted by Hernandez | April 14, 2008 12:47 PM
10

@ECB Do you honestly think pro-lifers wouldn't stop an unwanted pregnancy before it started if it was in their power to do so? Your last paragraph shows that you don't really understand what you said in your second paragraph. Those things you said they should support also have moral issues attached to them, at least in the minds of conservatives. But instead of trying to understand why pro-lifers don't see our side of the issue, you spew bullshit like "forced pregnancy brigade" and "terrorist". It's as bad as what the most zealous of them say about us.

Posted by cmaceachen | April 14, 2008 12:49 PM
11

Nice cherry-picking, 5280. You mentioned the extremely unreliable ARG poll, which has shown wild swings from week-to-week, and is the most unreliable of the polls. Susquehanna, which knows the folks of PA, has a poll out today. It shows Clinton with a 3 point lead in PA. My guess is she is leading by 10 points in PA.

Posted by Fairness | April 14, 2008 12:51 PM
12

Really, you just need to shut up. Seriously. Post about kittens or something but leave the politics alone. It's not your thing. Seriously.

Posted by monkey | April 14, 2008 12:52 PM
13

By the way, how does one have a reasonable discussion with someone who routinely fails to grasp basic logic?

If someone supports birth control, they show an interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies. Some pro-lifers don't support birth control. Therefore, those pro-lifers don't show an interest in reducing unwanted pregnancies.

(I inserted "some" to at least make your premises true statements)

It's called denying the antecedent, it's a logical fallacy, and you do it all the fucking time. I would hope that someone attempting to make a political analysis would have a handle on one of the most basic logical fallacies in the book.

Then again, you did resort to calling your opponents terrorists.

Posted by w7ngman | April 14, 2008 12:56 PM
14

ECB giveth ECB taketh away.

Oh...bama.

Posted by Dawgson | April 14, 2008 1:04 PM
15

5280 @5, so what? Even if she wins BOTH those states by those numbers or more, and the rest by ANOTHER 10% larger than what the current polls show, she STILL won't have more delegates. But no, you're right - Obama should just give up now, right?

Posted by even so? | April 14, 2008 1:07 PM
16

Actually, I do know people who are pro-life who are completely pro-contraception in order to prevent this choice from having to be an issue. Yes, many (most) of the Evangelical and Catholic anti-abortion people are also hostile toward birth control, but there is "common ground" with those who view abortion as morally wrong but agree with pro-choicers on stopping the pregnancy in the first place.

Posted by Jason | April 14, 2008 1:13 PM
17

Can any Stranger staffers who read these comments print comment 13 out and make ECB read it / dictate it, or otherwise guarantee her comprehension of what was said? Or are you all so chicken-shit afraid of her that you'll continue to walk on eggshells around her?

Posted by what 13 said | April 14, 2008 1:14 PM
18

You are not presenting a fair or honest evaluation of the spectrum of pro-life views. The views of people who oppose abortion, which include many people who oppose it in principle but support the right of the individual to make that judgement herself, are not monolithic. To characterize everybody who doesn't share your views on abortion as a clinic-bombing terrorist is straight out of Demagogue Bullshit 101.

It looks to me like what Obama is trying is to separate militant pro-lifers from their anti-birth control rhetoric. And he's doing so in a context that makes him appear conciliatory and sympathetic to their views while effectively re-framing the debate to his (and our) advantage. Pitting abortion against birth control in this way seems like a rhetorically smart proposition, and not dissimilar to Hillary's statements on the topic.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 14, 2008 1:20 PM
19

If one accepts the author's analysis of pro-life motives, does it follow that Obama is naive? Perhaps he's cordially inviting them to reveal their agenda.

Posted by butterw | April 14, 2008 1:20 PM
20

Okay, so forcing women to carry pregnancies to term is what... benign neglect?

Anti-choice believers terrorize women. It's the core of their mission. To characterize it any differently is to leave the victims of their crusade out of the discussion.

Posted by Soupytwist | April 14, 2008 1:29 PM
21

Soupytwist: No. Anti-choice believers are not terrorists unless they engage in terrorist acts. Advocating a political position you don't agree with is not terrorism. Being wrong is not terrorism.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 14, 2008 1:45 PM
22

Your post seems to imply that *everyone* on the pro-life side is absolutely stark raving loony, and I refuse to buy that. Activists, maybe, I dunno. You have to be a little touched to walk down the street holding a 20' banner with a picture of a bloody fetus on it. But Mr. & Mrs. Pro-Life American Citizen are, I suspect, more reasonable.

And even if they aren't, why not credit Obama with offering them the chance to be so?

Posted by Breklor | April 14, 2008 1:54 PM
23

As someone who has seen friends lose their lives to terrorists, Erica, I'd really prefer you reserve your use of that term for actual terrorists, rather than casually casting it at people you disagree with.

Posted by Trey | April 14, 2008 1:56 PM
24

Barnett’s post was about pro-choice “activists.” It was not about all people who hold pro-choice beliefs.

A little reading comprehension before the lectures on logic, please.

Posted by Not Usually a Barnett Defender | April 14, 2008 2:03 PM
25

Calling someone a terrorist in an argument is fast becoming the new "nazi" or "fascist," but when clinic-bombing is a method sometimes resorted to by a group, referring to a member of that group as a terrorist isn't as much of a stretch as some people are making it out to be.

However, this whole argument is silly when you take into account the fact that plenty of anti-choice people are pro-contraception. Not the bomb-friendly ones, obviously, but average woman who goes to church and thinks killing babies is very, very sad and wants the president to make it stop? You can be pretty sure she's on the pill.

And, Soupytwist has a point: What else do you call forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Especially if she was unwillingly impregnated as the result of being raped? Perhaps "torture" would be more appropriate than "terrorism," but it's still disgusting and malicious to wish that upon anyone.

Posted by Aislinn | April 14, 2008 2:09 PM
26

@13 -- right on; @17, hilarious.
In response to "You can't have a reasonable discussion with a terrorist," or, apparently, ECB.

Posted by pso | April 14, 2008 2:12 PM
27

Aislinn: Earth Liberation Front members sometimes use bombs. Are environmentalists (even 'environmental activists') therefore terrorists?

I agree that forcing women to carry pregnancies to term against their will is wrong. But adopting the rhetorical bullshit of the right-wing, even in the service of virtuous causes, doesn't do anybody any favors.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 14, 2008 2:29 PM
28

#24, speaking of reading comprehension, the part about it only being "some" pro-lifers who don't support contraception was not the point of my logic lecture, it was only to maker her premises true statements. It didn't change the validity of the conclusion. The point is she left out abstinence because it allowed her to come to the absurd conclusion that "pro-life activists have no interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies."

Even so, generalizing all 'pro-life activists' as not supporting contraception is still stupid.

Posted by w7ngman | April 14, 2008 2:30 PM
29

I'm glad some people on this forum are not progressive-crazy: because I myself am pro-life and pro-contraceptive. After all, the whole point of being pro-life is to lower the number of abortions, right? Well using condoms, etc., leads to less need for abortions without the need to take multiple cold showers a day. Everybody wins! Additionally, being pro-life for me means I'm not a fan of abortions and want to reduce them, but acknowledge they are sometimes a necessity (rape, incest, yadda yadda.)

Oh, but ECB, I so love how every sentence of this post is dripping with Clinton-love. Ya know, this isn't the first time Obama has discussed abortions. In fact, I believe it was covered by a fellow Stranger many weeks back, in a very elegant and speech that demonstrated he can see both sides of the aisle.

But hey, I'm a terrorist, what do I know?

Posted by Marty | April 14, 2008 2:43 PM
30

@27: While making an overzealous, unmeasured point about how you can't reason with militant environmentalists? Sure, throwing in a "terrorist" isn't totally off-the-mark. It's not fair or accurate when applied to environmental activists as a whole, but reading someone call environmentalists "terrorists" in the context of an angry blog post about not being able to reason with them wouldn't ruffle my feathers.

Posted by Aislinn | April 14, 2008 2:50 PM
31

@30. Ha! Fair enough.

Posted by flamingbanjo | April 14, 2008 3:56 PM
32

Confidential to Obamatons: BHO is not who you think he is. But Hils wrapped this thing up weeks ago. So I guess it doesn't matter...

Posted by fluteprof | April 14, 2008 4:11 PM
33

Okay, I get it now:

Dan, you pay Erica on a "per/comment" basis don't you?

(And you owe me 10 cents for posting this, ECB!)

Posted by Timrrr | April 14, 2008 4:28 PM
34

So, wouldn't abortion in the case of danger to the mother not be a legal question, but one of medical ethics? Are their laws on the books describing when doctors can separate conjoined twins when it will result in the death of one while the other survives?

Posted by Mr. Joshua | April 14, 2008 4:49 PM
35

"Pro-life activists have no interest in reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies."

All feminists are lesbians

All gays are drag queens

All blacks are good at sports

All Irishmen are drunks

Just playing along with Erica's reasoning. It's fun!!!

Posted by Blanket Statements for Everyone!!! | April 14, 2008 5:35 PM
36

The vast majority of "republicans" I know seem to be pro-choice. They may not like them moraly, but understand that there is a need for them in society. In the same respect, they are obviously mostly for birth control etc. etc.

Yet the beleifs they have is not relational to the rhetoric spewed to get elected in this country on the right wing political theater. And THAT is what really creeps me the fuck out. Because it seems that in order to get elected in the right wing theater you have to appease the holier than though purists sex-until-marriage-and-for-babies only crowd.

America has come to love it's premarital sex, it's birth control, and if all else fails, it's option to abort and CHOOSE the type of family they want to have. Yet if you were going to listen to these people that were ELECTED to office you would think otherwise.

Posted by OR Matt | April 14, 2008 5:43 PM
37

The activists are assholes in that degree, but many of the rank-and-file pro-lifers would like to reduce unwanted pregnancy, but go about it in a way I disagree with and think is foolish. Dialogue and an attempt of coming together could impact those folks, if not the crazy anti-choice leaders.

Posted by Alphonse | April 14, 2008 7:37 PM
38

Where the fuck is the link for when Obama supporters showed "disdain" for Clinton over her comments about the moral aspects of abortion? That kind of assertion can be made now without any evidence? Obama has been making the same statement for quite awhile too - in his book and in his speeches. But you know ethical journalism is hardly the strong suit of this particular commentator, is it?

Posted by Ed | April 14, 2008 7:51 PM
39

@29 - I was getting ready to unleash a book-sized rant like unPC usually does, but you said everything I was thinking in two paragraphs.

Posted by Georgia Guy | April 15, 2008 8:23 AM
40

Not all pro-life people are the same. I actually know some. Yeah, there are some nuts, and they are the most vocal, as usual, but there are a ton of non-nuts, and that's who he's talking to. Plus, even assuming for the sake of arg that they're all nuts, why does it offend you if he talks to them as though they are not? If what he says rolls off their oily nut backs, then what is lost? No harm in trying.

Posted by Phoebe | April 16, 2008 2:56 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).