Anti-Abortion songs
Snapp
Mike
Cj Hopper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
> SAMMY HAGAR's "Marching To Mars" CD the other day after reading an old
> review of it in HOME LIFE magazine. Whether or not he has converted is
> still in question, but never the less you can tell by some of the lyrics
> on this CD that he has started some sort of change. Anyways, he has a
> great anti-abortion song entitled, "Who Has The Right?" and its quickly
> become one of my favorite songs that I have found. I've copied the
> lyrics below if anyone is curious. Let me know what you think. Take
> care and God bless!
>
> Colbey
> cj...@bellsouth.net
>
> SAMMY HAGAR
> “Who Has The Right?”
>
> Words & Music by:
> Sammy Hagar & Jesse Harms
>
> Here’s a message from the heart, are you listening?
> Somethings belong to you and no one else.
> Oh one more life is taken, and thats one more than God allows.
> And theres another on the road shouting out, “Who has the right?”
>
> And there’s a war out in the streets, that no one is winning.
> Tell me when did a human life become so cheap?
> And how can we take away what did we did not create?
> Beyond the power of the conscience, beyond the power of the State.
> Tell me who, who has the right...well no one has the right!
>
> Everyone’s a victim, everyone’s to blame.
> Born we all are so different yet the same.
> Oh, and everyone’s a master of their own destiny.
> As long as one of us is chained none of us are free.
> Oh, how can we take away what we did not create?
> Beyond the power of the conscience, beyond the power of the State.
> Tell me who, who has the right...well no one has the right!
>
> Oh, how can we take away what we did not create?
> Beyond the power of the conscience, beyond the power of the State.
> Tell me who, who has the right...well no one has the right!
>
> Are we making a mistake here?
> There’s no room for that.
>
> Who has the right? No one has the right!
> Who has the right? They don’t have the right!
> Who has the right? No one has the right!
> Who has the right? We don’t have that right!
> Who has the right? Oh, no...the right.
> Who has the right? They don’t have the right!
> Who has the right? No one has the right!
Cj Hopper
Paul Oliver
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
>a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
>for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
>appreciate it if you would pass it along to me.
Hi Cj.
Here's a song by Grammatrain called execution. If you've
already heard it, then nevermind :).
"execution"
from the album lonely house
Written by Grammatrain
watch while i'm burned in salt
tell me now where's my fault
i'm torn in two, you pull me through
oh ignore my shout now scrape me out
oh, nation murders me, me, me
suck me down your hose
pieces of my fingers and toes
use me to brew your lab rat stew
oh dissolve my voice for your woman's choice
my execution, it's your revolution
spill my blood on "civil" hands
and i pay to make you free
oh, nation murders me
yeah, with politicians dreams
now silencing my screams, screams, screams
--I copied this from http://www.grammatrain.com/
--
==================== Paul Oliver ===== poliver at cse dot unl dot edu ====
If I had a mine shaft, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's
got to be a better way.
====================== http://cse.unl.edu/~poliver =======================
Bjarni Fridberg
on the Rackets & Drapes CD called Candyland is a song called "Babykiller"
and yes it is about abortion :)
It's a awesome song, sounds awesome and the lyric's are cool and short :)
Here you have the lyrics:
>Playing God with the innocent lives
>you decide who will live and who will die
>its homicide,
>baby killer
>murder in the first degree you have legalized
>you pretend not to hear all the childrens cries
>its genocide
>baby killer.
Cj Hopper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
A Minstrel
anti-abortion lyrics. I remember there is a live CD for Tomfest 96 which has
a milk bottle on the front cover, and the theme of that album is
anti-abortion. It features bands POD and others. Can anyone remember what
that album is called?
God Bless
Kris Leong
Bernard Beaton
title) by the Smashing Pumpkins. You probably already know this because
of its massive airplay a few years back, but just in case you forgot
about it.
It's a little indirect, but that's art
Bernard.
Disarm you with a smile
And cut you like you want me to
Cut that little child
Inside of me and such a part of you
Ooh, the years burn
I used to be a little boy
So old in my shoes
And what I choose is my choice
What's a boy supposed to do?
The killer in me is the killer in you
My love
I send this smile over to you
Disarm you with a smile
And leave you like they left me here
To wither in denial
The bitterness of one who's left alone
Ooh, the years burn
Ooh, the years burn, burn, burn
I used to be a little boy
So old in my shoes
And what I choose is my voice
What's a boy supposed to do?
The killer in me is the killer in you
My love
I send this smile over to you
The killer in me is the killer in you
Send this smile over to you
The killer in me is the killer in you
Send this smile over to you
The killer in me is the killer in you
Send this smile over to you
Peter Thomas Chattaway
album, and I haven't heard it in ages, so I could be mistaken.
King's X's `Legal Kill' also comes to mind.
I've got an album somewhere with songs by Undercover, Randy Stonehill, the
77s, Pat Boone, and others. I think it's called _It's Gotta Stop!_.
Of course, the first verse to Steve Taylor's `Whatever Happened to Sin?'
is anti-abortion too; he also brings the issue up in `Baby Doe' and `I
Blew Up the Clinic Real Good', though neither song is about abortion,
strictly speaking (BD is about euthanasia, IBUtCR about clinic-bombers).
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
No man is an Island, entire of it self... -- John Donne, Meditation XVII
I am a little world made cunningly... -- John Donne, Holy Sonnet V
David Murray (SG Fan)
The Inspirations.
I think that's the correct title.
David Murray /db-m...@rfci.net (to reply remove the dash)
http://www.rfci.net/dbmurray
RMC's Official Resident Southern Gospel Fan
Making hay while the sun shines.
LilSmart1
www.reunionrecords.com and check out the video, too. If that doesn't break
your heart, I don't know what will.
-Julie
It was so much easier before you became you;
Now you don't bring me anything but down.
-Sheryl Crow, "Anything But Down"
Michael A. Vickers
>Galactic Cowboys' `If I Were a Killer' comes to mind, but I don't have the
>album, and I haven't heard it in ages, so I could be mistaken.
hum. wow. i never thought of the song in that light, but now that i
relisten to it, it really seems to fit.
>King's X's `Legal Kill' also comes to mind.
a good example. i almost got this song played on the ultrafundy christian
radio station in town during their anti-abortion week (my roommate is a
board/DJ person there). i was really hoping. had they played it, i would
have had the pleasure of informing them that they now play music performed
by homosexuals.
michael
'listen to me very closely - there is more heaven than hell.' - KX
--[michael a. vickers]-------------------[mavi...@kings-x.com]--
Mr. Vision
<cj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> appreciate it if you would pass it along to me.
No lyrics on hand, but another is Code of Ethics' "Breaking Down", on
the _Visual Paradox_ album. Circle of Dust's "Descend" has some lyrics
about abortion: "Stifled cry of the unborn..."
--
The C.O.D. / John Turpin / <http://www2.msstate.edu/~jct1/cod/>
"Just for the sake of it, make sure you're always frowning
It shows the world that you've got substance and depth" -- PSB
MSJanke
"See No Evil," Holy Soldier (off their album Holy Soldier)
"Children Can Live (without It)," DC Talk (off of Nu Thang)
"Hey World," Petra (off of Unseen Power)
Michael Janke
(Remove ".no-spam" from email to contact me)
=====================================
Cindy Morgan NET: http://cindymorgan.cjb.net
Neiby
>
>"Children Can Live (without It)," DC Talk (off of Nu Thang)
>
>"Hey World," Petra (off of Unseen Power)
>
>
One of the best songs I've ever heard on this topic is "Who'll be the next to
go?" by Bob Ayala. That's gonna be tough to find but it's good stuff.
And how about "The Survivor" by Phil Keaggy?
Richibaby
Taylor's "I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good". The song and the video are both on
his "Now the Truth Can Be Told" cd and video compilations.
Richard Jones
Jeff Edwards
Pistols. I doubt they'll be playing it on the local CCM station, as most
stations shy from 70's punk songs containing multiple instance of the
f-word.
--
Jeff Edwards
(formerly the Waco Kid)
paranoia...@airmail.net (remove NOSPAMMER to reply)
http://web2.airmail.net/paranoia
Cj Hopper wrote in message <36C38228...@bellsouth.net>...
>Hello,
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
>a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
>for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
Brian M. Livingston
How about Ray Boltz, "What was I supposed to Be?" Not really
Anti-abortion but it talks about children who wer aborted asking God what
their lives were supposed to be like. Very good song.
Cj Hopper
(cj...@bellsouth.net) wrote: : Hello,
: Colbey
: cj...@bellsouth.net
--
<>< Brian M. Livingston (^:b
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Email: gte...@prism.gatech.edu
nicholas.k...@pepsico.com
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> appreciate it if you would pass it along to me.
Phil Keaggy "Little Ones"
Tony Melendez "Silent Scream"
Michael Card "Spirit of the Age"
Terry Talbot touches upon this in "I Am He" and "Face to Face"
Steve Camp & friends "Do Something Now"
What may also work are general Christian social-outreach songs: Steve Camp
"Do you feel their pain" and "Don't tell them Jesus loves them" Sherri
Youngward "Matthew 25" Rez "Someone Sleeps" and "Silent Screams" and "Land of
Broken Hearts (title? it was the only good song off of _Reach of Love_) and,
well, nearly every song from Rez, really.
Nick.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Matt Laswell
: If a goldie oldie will do (with a vintage video to boot), look up Steve
: Taylor's "I Blew Up the Clinic Real Good". The song and the video are both on
: his "Now the Truth Can Be Told" cd and video compilations.
It's a great song, but it's not about abortion. It's about the
old question of whether or not the ends justify the means.
--
matt laswell -- laswell at jump dot net
"Ultimately, my days are moved by the one who creates time"
- Dan Quisenberry
Cheef
For songs from the late 70's / early 80's....
"Little Ones" by Phil Keaggy
chorus (as I remember):
Who will speak up for the little ones?
Helpless and half-abandoned.
They've got a right to choose life they don't want to lose.
I've got to speak up, won't you?
And don't forget the Sex Pistols' classic tune "Bodies"
off of "Never Mind the Bullocks".
Peter Thomas Chattaway
Brown mentions in passing in his Christmas song `This Little Child'.
ccmro...@lycosmail.com
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> SAMMY HAGAR's "Marching To Mars" CD the other day after reading an old
> review of it in HOME LIFE magazine. Whether or not he has converted is
> still in question, but never the less you can tell by some of the lyrics
> on this CD that he has started some sort of change. Anyways, he has a
> great anti-abortion song entitled, "Who Has The Right?" and its quickly
> become one of my favorite songs that I have found. I've copied the
> lyrics below if anyone is curious. Let me know what you think. Take
> care and God bless!
>
Anti-abortion songs are getting to be as common as any CCM cliche (like
"You're all I need"). It seems like just about any Christian artist/group
that has more than 2 albums has to have at least one anti-abortion song in
their discography. I probably have 30 or more in my collection.
A few that haven't been mentioned yet which deal wholly or partially with the
abortion issue are
Altar Boys - I question it
Barren Cross - Killers of the Unborn
Phil Keaggy (He has a lot!) - Don't pass me by
Idle Cure - Who cries for me
Keith Green - A Billion Starving People
Resurrection Band (Rez) - Fiend or Foul
and many more that I'm forgetting.
C. H.
Frederick A. Lajoie
>
> From: pet...@unixg.ubc.ca
>
> >Galactic Cowboys' `If I Were a Killer' comes to mind, but I don't have the
> >album, and I haven't heard it in ages, so I could be mistaken.
>
> hum. wow. i never thought of the song in that light, but now that i
> relisten to it, it really seems to fit.
>
> >King's X's `Legal Kill' also comes to mind.
>
> a good example. i almost got this song played on the ultrafundy christian
> radio station in town during their anti-abortion week (my roommate is a
> board/DJ person there). i was really hoping. had they played it, i would
> have had the pleasure of informing them that they now play music performed
> by homosexuals.
So who's the other one? Jerry? Ty? :-)
Fred
--
remove JUNK at the end of my email address to REPLY!
:-) <-- For the humour impaired.
NP: Newsboys _Take Me To Your Leader_
My only X lives in Tex. -> http://www.compassnet.com/grump/
Have a cow boy! -> http://www.galacticcowboys.com/
http://fox.nstn.ca/~fred_l/index.htm
TheBigFish
Hey everybody, sunny skies outside at WLFJ, great music coming up from 4
Him, Point of Grace, Steven Curtis Chapman, the Sex Pistols and of course,
Twila Paris.
You never know...
Jeff Edwards wrote in message
TheBigFish
Truth/Livin' Life Upside Down
Steve Taylor/Baby Doe (yes, it's about killing a BORN child, but to me
there's no difference)
Steve Taylor/What Ever Happened To Sin? (Touches on Abortion)
Coogan Mishler
Bjarni Fridberg
for that song, but I can't find them, what album are they on ???
And does any1 know where I can buy Ray Botlz albums ???
Brian M. Livingston wrote:
> How about Ray Boltz, "What was I supposed to Be?" Not really
> Anti-abortion but it talks about children who wer aborted asking God what
> their lives were supposed to be like. Very good song.
>
> Cj Hopper
> (cj...@bellsouth.net) wrote: : Hello,
>
> : I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> : a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> : for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> : appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
> : SAMMY HAGAR's "Marching To Mars" CD the other day after reading an old
> : review of it in HOME LIFE magazine. Whether or not he has converted is
> : still in question, but never the less you can tell by some of the lyrics
> : on this CD that he has started some sort of change. Anyways, he has a
> : great anti-abortion song entitled, "Who Has The Right?" and its quickly
> : become one of my favorite songs that I have found. I've copied the
> : lyrics below if anyone is curious. Let me know what you think. Take
> : care and God bless!
>
LoveAwaits
"Fight the Fight" - Various Artists
Oh man, this project is awsome!!! I saw the debut of this at a Debby Boone and
Phil Keaggy concert back in the early 80's. The testimonies of all the artists
are phenominal! I wish they would reissue this on video. If anyone knows
where I can get a copy, PLEASE let me know. Thanks!
"Games of Chance and Circumstance" - A.D.
Excellent song full of passion and compassion.
"Save the Children" - Phil Keaggy & Randy Stonehill
Great song!
LilSmart1
Everytime I read that title, it cracks me up.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: "Save the Children" - Phil Keaggy & Randy Stonehill
Uh ... is this about abortion? I always thought it was about starving
children in Africa or some such thing.
LoveAwaits
>children in Africa or some such thing
Now that you mention it, it probably is. Sorry.
It's still a great song though. :)
LoveAwaits
of the name of it for the life of me. I would go try to find the CD but I've
got them in storage right now. Maybe someone can remember the name of the song.
HistoryDC
>LoveAwaits (lovea...@aol.com) wrote:
>: "Save the Children" - Phil Keaggy & Randy Stonehill
>
I think you are correct, Peter, but it isn't necessarily exclusive to Afircan
children. Randy Stonehill was (is) connected closely to Compassion
International, and this song, as well as _Judgement Day_ (about Haitian people)
reflects this. Both songs ask the listener what his/her place in the plight of
LDC children should be.
Tim
(LDC = less developed countries, as opposed to MDC = more developed countries.
Now that the Cold War has ended, LDC and MDC are more correct terms than ones
such as "Third World")
Loki
wrote:
>Hello,
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
>a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
>for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
>appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
>SAMMY HAGAR's "Marching To Mars" CD the other day after reading an old
>review of it in HOME LIFE magazine. Whether or not he has converted is
>still in question, but never the less you can tell by some of the lyrics
>on this CD that he has started some sort of change. Anyways, he has a
>great anti-abortion song entitled, "Who Has The Right?" and its quickly
>become one of my favorite songs that I have found. I've copied the
>lyrics below if anyone is curious. Let me know what you think. Take
>care and God bless!
If you're a Christian, you probably hate this band but it's important
to note that the Sex Pistols did an anti-abortion tune called "Bodies"
on their Never Mind the Bullocks... Here's the Sex Pistols album.
"Bodies! I'm not an animal! Mommy! I'm not an abortion!"
> Colbey
>cj...@bellsouth.net
--
Et in Arcadia Ego...
Loki
-[E-Mail]- juv...@citrus.infi.net
-[WWW]- http://www.angelfire.com/or/gnome
-[ICQ]- #13134728
"Defame not the good name of God with your profane
Christian rantings!" - Eldridge Kane
Eric Wodka
I need to go dig threw my LP's and find the 45.
Eric
Cj Hopper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
> SAMMY HAGAR's "Marching To Mars" CD the other day after reading an old
> review of it in HOME LIFE magazine. Whether or not he has converted is
> still in question, but never the less you can tell by some of the lyrics
> on this CD that he has started some sort of change. Anyways, he has a
> great anti-abortion song entitled, "Who Has The Right?" and its quickly
> become one of my favorite songs that I have found. I've copied the
> lyrics below if anyone is curious. Let me know what you think. Take
> care and God bless!
>
ccmro...@lycosmail.com
"Dr. Hatchet" I believe. I only had the album for a short time, but I
remember that one. It was good.
C. Hancock
ccmro...@lycosmail.com
Eric Wodka <ewo...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Undercover did an awesome anti abortion song but I'm not sure of the title.
> I need to go dig threw my LP's and find the 45.
> Eric
>
"Slaughter of the innocents". That's a good one too.
Patrick Morrison
Patrick Morrison
Paul Oliver wrote in message <7a04co$ftq$1...@unlnews.unl.edu>...
>Cj Hopper <cj...@bellsouth.net> writes:
>> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
>>a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
>>for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
>>appreciate it if you would pass it along to me.
>
>
>Hi Cj.
>Here's a song by Grammatrain called execution. If you've
>already heard it, then nevermind :).
>
>
>
>"execution"
>
>from the album lonely house
>
>Written by Grammatrain
>watch while i'm burned in salt
>tell me now where's my fault
>i'm torn in two, you pull me through
>oh ignore my shout now scrape me out
>
>oh, nation murders me, me, me
>
>suck me down your hose
>pieces of my fingers and toes
>use me to brew your lab rat stew
>oh dissolve my voice for your woman's choice
>
>my execution, it's your revolution
>
>spill my blood on "civil" hands
>and i pay to make you free
>oh, nation murders me
>yeah, with politicians dreams
>now silencing my screams, screams, screams
>
>
>--I copied this from http://www.grammatrain.com/
>
>--
>==================== Paul Oliver ===== poliver at cse dot unl dot edu
====
> If I had a mine shaft, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's
> got to be a better way.
>====================== http://cse.unl.edu/~poliver
=======================
RDyer14145
Live ' was engraved on a monument at a church near by (hugh honor).
The title is 'Life Is Life'. It is the result of having my child aborted
against my wishes and court challenge.
If anyone would like a copy e-mail me.
I don't usually promote my work but I don't usually find people looking for
pro-life songs.
God Bless
Randy Dyer
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: Undercover did an awesome anti abortion song but I'm not sure of the
: title.
I hope you're not thinking of `Slaughter of the Innocents' or whatever
it's called. It's not a song, really -- just a rant, but a mercifully
short rant, at least.
I've got it on the _It's Gotta Stop!_ cassette. I see Undercover also
included it on disc 2 of their _Anthology: Volume 1_, except it's a hidden
track -- you have to press play on track 1, then rewind, to hear the song.
Apparently whoever compiled the _Anthology_ discs also realized that that
rant would interrupt the flow of the music (if, say, you had discs 1 & 2
on your CD-changer and went straight from one to the other). They put the
song on the CD which is nice for us completists, but kept it out of sight.
Does Undercover have any other abortion-related songs? I don't recall any
off-hand.
... Meanwhile, on a somewhat different tangent, instead of anti-abortion
songs, why not pro-life songs, or at least songs that deal with the
sadness that comes with spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriages)?
I'm thinking here of Terry Scott Taylor's `Light Princess' ("I could not
hold this child in my arms / So I let her go and she floated to heaven")
and I suspect Phil Keaggy probably has a song on this subject -- didn't
his wife write a book about being unable to have children or something?
... Meanwhile, jumping back to songs about abortion, Sinead O'Connor wrote
`My Special Child', a song about an abortion that she had, and released it
as a CD-single back in 1991; all royalties went to the International Red
Cross and its campaign for Kurdish refugees.
I don't know that you could call it an anti-abortion or pro-abortion song.
She doesn't exactly apologize for the abortion, which she had after she
broke up with the father, but she tells her never-born daughter, "You were
precious to me," and there's a tinge of regret to it all.
Jerry B. Ray
>Anti-abortion songs are getting to be as common as any CCM cliche (like
>"You're all I need"). It seems like just about any Christian artist/group
>that has more than 2 albums has to have at least one anti-abortion song in
>their discography. I probably have 30 or more in my collection.
A couple of songs that come to mind that I haven't seen mentioned yet,
that may or may not be anti-abortion but for some reason I think they
are (but I'm too lazy to check):
"Rock-A-Bye-Bye" by Extreme, from their s/t album
"Your Pretty Baby" by the 77s, from _All Fall Down_
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Hope springs eternal once in awhile"
-- Mark Heard, "Another Day In Limbo" --
Steven Horton
: Hello,
: I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
: a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
: for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
: appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
My favorite pro-life songs are "Execution" by Grammatrain and
"Whatever happened to sin?" by Steve Taylor.
-Steve
--
/ /\/\ Steve Horton
\ \ / fourth year CS student at purdue university
\ / \ fantastic four page: expert.cc.purdue.edu/~shorton/ff.html
\_\/\ \ swccg creature faq: expert.cc.purdue.edu/~shorton/creature.htm
\_\/ star wars ccg player - rating 1694 - 78th in corellia
"the line between rhetoric and reality has been too blurred...
something grievous has occurred."
Bill Hammell
Steven Horton wrote in message <7a6poq$1al$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
>My favorite pro-life songs are "Execution" by Grammatrain and
>"Whatever happened to sin?" by Steve Taylor.
>-Steve
Mine is "Games of Chance and Circumstance" by Kerry Livgren/AD.
Bill
Philotheos
name, but it is the first song on Driving the Nails by VOL. It was pretty
good.
Cj Hopper wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: "Your Pretty Baby" by the 77s, from _All Fall Down_
It's also on that _It's Gotta Stop!_ compilation album.
Michael A. Vickers
>Hey, here's one I don't think anyone mentioned. I don't remember the track
>name, but it is the first song on Driving the Nails by VOL. It was pretty
>good.
oooh yeah, forgot about that one. 'odious'.
'sure it's your body, that's nakedly plain,
but listen 9 months ago it was public domain...'
michael
'listen to me very closely - there is more heaven than hell.' - KX
--[michael a. vickers]-------------------[mavi...@kings-x.com]--
L. King
Lisa
Michael A. Vickers wrote in message ...
clive
> From: pet...@unixg.ubc.ca
>
> >Galactic Cowboys' `If I Were a Killer' comes to mind,
> >but I don't have the album, and I haven't heard it in
> >ages, so I could be mistaken.
>
> hum. wow. i never thought of the song in that light,
> but now that i relisten to it, it really seems to fit.
i always thought it was pretty obvious. the allegory
works better than just ranting on "abortion is bad"..
the band struggled to get the video played on eMpTyV
for that reason...
> >King's X's `Legal Kill' also comes to mind.
>
> a good example. i almost got this song played on the
> ultrafundy christian radio station in town during
> their anti-abortion week (my roommate is a
> board/DJ person there). i was really hoping. had
> they played it, i would have had the pleasure of
> informing them that they now play music performed
> by homosexuals.
just one. ;) and ty, i think, wrote the lyrics
for "legal kill".
now.. if you could have got them to play death's
"altering the future" from their _spiritual healing_
album, that would have been impressive! :)
also, eldritch had a track on their first album, iirc,
though i cant remember which one, which dealt with
the same issue.
i could probably think of a few other 'pro-life'
songs (which i wouldnt necessarily count as
'anti-abortion').
thankfully, most bands avoid the subject though.
> michael
clive
R. Kyle Justice
How about "Odious" by Vigilantes of Love.
Kyle
sw...@wrtph0d6.bnr.ca
clive <cl...@ginger.am.qub.ac.uk> wrote:
>Michael A. Vickers wrote:
>> From: pet...@unixg.ubc.ca
>>
>> >Galactic Cowboys' `If I Were a Killer' comes to mind,
>> >but I don't have the album, and I haven't heard it in
>> >ages, so I could be mistaken.
>>
>> hum. wow. i never thought of the song in that light,
>> but now that i relisten to it, it really seems to fit.
>
>i always thought it was pretty obvious. the allegory
>works better than just ranting on "abortion is bad"..
>the band struggled to get the video played on eMpTyV
>for that reason...
I also remember hearing about it being banned in Canada, as well. I don't
remember if it was the song, or just the video.
Another one nobody's mentioned is Bride's "Picture Perfect", off of "Snakes
in the Playground". It deals indirectly with the abortion issue by telling
the story of someone who's gone through one.
---J. J.
LoveAwaits
the Unborn on CD. It's a Live Oak radio promo CD from the spring of 1990.
This is a really powerful song! If anyone knows where I can get the original
video that has all the artist interviews on it I sure would love to know. I
had it but the video broke. I guess I wore it out. : )
Thanks, Alan Payton
RDyer14145
>video that has all the artist interviews on it I sure would love to know. I
>had it but the video broke. I guess I wore it out. : )
>
>
Drive , Waco TX 76796.
I have a copy still in the shrink wrap if you cannot find a copy any where
else. I have several other copies as I used to use this for presentations I did
not the subject.
Randy Dyer
Brian M. Livingston
: I have now been looking the Ray Boltz page up and down and search for the lyrics
: for that song, but I can't find them, what album are they on ???
: And does any1 know where I can buy Ray Botlz albums ???
: Brian M. Livingston wrote:
: > How about Ray Boltz, "What was I supposed to Be?" Not really
: > Anti-abortion but it talks about children who wer aborted asking God what
: > their lives were supposed to be like. Very good song.
: >
: > Cj Hopper
: > (cj...@bellsouth.net) wrote: : Hello,
: >
: > --
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > <>< Brian M. Livingston (^:b
: > Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
: > Email: gte...@prism.gatech.edu
: >
--
<>< Brian M. Livingston (^:b
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Email: gte...@prism.gatech.edu
snail
"Life to Right" by _Crashdog_:
They were saved from
The butcher's blade
Where do they go from here ?
They were spared of
The holocaust
But what is life
When hope is lost
We're all just numbers
Dead or alive
When our existence is based
On our chance to survive
They wake to face
The daily grind
Can someone tell me
What's their right to life ?
If we shut down the clinics
Do you think we'd be done ?
Abortion's a symptom of a
Disease we won't cure
We gotta open our hearts
We gotta open our homes
We gotta give them a reason
For a child to be born.
--
snail | sn...@careless.net.au | http://www.careless.net.au/~snail/
I'm a man of my word. In the end, that's all there is. - Avon
---------- [radio: http://www.careless.net.au/~misfits] ----------
R.E.Matthews
Who will speak up for the little ones?
Helpless and half abandoned
They have a right to choose life, they don't want to lose
I've got to speak up won't you
Brandon VanDerHeide
********* Brandon's Little Compu-world quote for the day******************
Winston Churchill - When told by an old woman that he was
a slobbering drunk..."Ma'am, I may be drunk, but you are ugly
and tomorrow I'll be sober!"
--Winston Churchill
***************************************************************************
[...M...]
"Killers of the Unborn" by Barren Cross (1988)
'I am a child about to die. My mother does not hear my cry, no.
Injection starts to work its way. i don't feel love, i just feel pain.
i'm getting weaker, my poison blood. death surrounds me
like a flood. The operations over. I'm now in pieces in a garbage
bag. The guilt will now take over. Where's the relief you thought
you had?'
and...
"Human Holocaust" by The Warning (late 80's)
'Feminists yell "It's a womans right" but Jesus gives the gift of life.
Humanists say "Have it your way" but how did you feel when your
baby was slaughtered that day? You cry "I'm too young to be a
mother and wife" but when you play with sin you gotta pay the price.
Mass murderers on patrol. Abortion in the nation out of control.'
dsing...@ibm.net
my own." - King's X in "Legal Kill"
Snapp
Dan Temmesfeld
>
> "I have trouble with the persons with the signs, but I feel the need to make
> my own." - King's X in "Legal Kill"
followed by one of the best lines, imo...
"yes there are two ways to be, and truth does not depend on me..."
it sort of helps to put one in other's shoes...
Dan
+--- ---+
Dan Temmesfeld Galactic Cowboys on the Web
dan...@erinet.com http://www.dlm.net/gc/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"He who laughs last thinks slowest"
+--- ---+
Brian M. Livingston
I think that the Ray Boltz song "What was I supposed to be is on the Watch
the Lamb album, either that or Thank You. I will try to post the lyrics
in the near future.
: Colbey
: cj...@bellsouth.net
john cummins
Probably the best over all strictly Anti-Abortion would be:
I didn't see anyone mention this one: Malediction by Kemper Krabb (along with several others on the Operation Rescue album)
Of course: Legal Kill by King's X
and.... If I were a Killer by Gallactic Cowboys
Best pro-life:
Another: I am Human by Andy McCaroll and Moral Support
and Keaggy's Little Ones
bro. john
clive
not bad at all.
of course, i think tony and i are the only 2 rmc'ers that
actually live in a country where abortion is illegal,
even though we have the "disease". i think the option
should be available under special circumstances (but i
doubt there's much hope of even that).
> snail
clive
RDyer14145
>actually live in a country where abortion is illegal,
What country is that?
OrphansLD
hard-hitting, but not judgemental. Perfect.
Steve b.
Eby Varughese
On 14 Feb 1999, Steven Horton wrote:
> Cj Hopper (cj...@bellsouth.net) wrote:
> : Hello,
>
> : I love to find songs that deal with a stand against abortion. I have
> : a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> : for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
>
> : appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
>
> My favorite pro-life songs are "Execution" by Grammatrain and
> "Whatever happened to sin?" by Steve Taylor.
> -Steve
>
clive
northern ireland. also, the irish word for abortion
is "ginmhilleadh" which literally means embryo-destruction,
which probably indicates the kind of mentality people
have about the issue here.
clive
RDyer14145
>is "ginmhilleadh" which literally means embryo-destruction,
>which probably indicates the kind of mentality people
>have about the issue here.
>
>clive
Makes me proud of my Irish roots!
Abortion is the destruction of human life, God bless those who stand against it
and stand for justice for all no matter how small.
Randy
Happy The Man
conatations to it. I would prefer we address this as pro-life and let them
use the words Anti-Life
Peace, Craig
RDyer14145 <rdyer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990222111535...@ng15.aol.com...
RDyer14145
>conatations to it. I would prefer we address this as pro-life and let them
>use the words Anti-Life
>
>Peace, Craig
>
>
Craig, I have been involved in pro-life for quite some time and agree with your
point. The media uses the term anti-abortion for just that negative conatation.
However reading the posts in this ng I have begun to consider that there could
well be songs that are pro-life (and I hope mine are in this group) but there
could also be songs that are just anti-abortion. These would be songs that just
point out that abortion is wrong etc. but really do not have a strong pro-life
message.
I would probably call any song that takes a stand against abortion pro-life but
this may not be the case, as with the people involved, there are those who are
pro-life and there are those who are anti-abortion. The difference is that a
pro-life person would demonstrate a respect for all people including the
abortionists and therefore would not be bombing or shooting etc. Whereas
someone who is anti-abortion may consider using violence against an abortion
provider to be justified.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: The media uses the term anti-abortion for just that negative conatation.
Point #1: The Canadian Press Style Book tells reporters to respect the
self-identification of other groups, thus "pro-life" is the preferred term
for pro-life groups and pro-choice groups cannot be called "pro-abortion".
I don't know how other news agencies handle such things, but "the media"
isn't particularly interested in grinding just one side of this axe.
Point #2: The term "anti-abortion" is really the more accurate term, since
many, if not most, people involved in the so-calked pro-life cause also
support the death penalty and the military and have little interest in
contributing to the well-being of the fetus *after* it is born.
Yeah, yeah, I know that more and more people are trying to be, as Ron
Sider puts it, "completely pro-life". But if it's accuracy you want ...
: The difference is that a pro-life person would demonstrate a respect for
: all people including the abortionists and therefore would not be bombing
: or shooting etc. Whereas someone who is anti-abortion may consider using
: violence against an abortion provider to be justified.
Exactly.
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
No man is an Island, entire of it self... -- John Donne, Meditation XVII
I am a little world made cunningly... -- John Donne, Holy Sonnet V
RDyer14145
>Point #1: The Canadian Press Style Book tells reporters to respect the
>self-identification of other groups, thus "pro-life" is the preferred term
>for pro-life groups and pro-choice groups cannot be called "pro-abortion".
>I don't know how other news agencies handle such things, but "the media"
>isn't particularly interested in grinding just one side of this axe.
This is absolutely not true and the facts demonstrate this well. The majority
of the media coverage has a pro-abortion bias. This is evidenced by the lack of
properly publishing the plight of the babies.
What is pro-choice? Do these people fight for my right to choose if I want to
wear a seatbelt or not? or my right to choose whether or not to pay taxes? No
the only 'choice ' they champion is the choice to label a small human a non
human and destroy it. Yet you call the media term pro-choice accurate and also
suggest that as many people involved in the pro-life movement are for the death
penalty they are disqualified from being called pro-life. Sounds like you like
to have it both ways.
BTW were did you get your stats? I am pro-life and not in favor of the death
penalty. Our country makes it legal to kill babies just because they cannot
fight back, why give them a license to kill more innocent people,,as well we
have had too many people in this country given life sentences just to find out
later that they were innocent.
>
>Point #2: The term "anti-abortion" is really the more accurate term, since
>many, if not most, people involved in the so-calked pro-life cause also
>support the death penalty and the military and have little interest in
>contributing to the well-being of the fetus *after* it is born.
Of all the people invovled in contributing to the well-being of the 'fetus'
after it is born it is predominately the pro-life people. Check out who runs
most of the food banks etc. Who runs the outreaches etc. I have volunteered on
the streets for years. A youth once told me that he was tired of all the
outreaches being run by Christians, I suggested he may want to question why it
is only the Christians that care enough about his well being to offer free food
and clothing, a coffee house to hang out in etc.(and many programs).
But what a statement,,,we can justify our slaughter of the innocent based on
the belief that pro-life people are not doing enough for them if they get a
chance to live. Well I am sure pro-life people pay taxes, were do those dollars
go?
What do pro-abortion people bring to the table? the rhetoric that you (get it
YOU not me you) are better off dead so we will champion to kill you as opposed
to taking up the supposed slack and caring for the little ones!
>
>Yeah, yeah, I know that more and more people are trying to be, as Ron
>Sider puts it, "completely pro-life". But if it's accuracy you want ...
>
>: The difference is that a pro-life person would demonstrate a respect for
>: all people including the abortionists and therefore would not be bombing
>: or shooting etc. Whereas someone who is anti-abortion may consider using
>: violence against an abortion provider to be justified.
>
>Exactly.
If it'a accuracy you want,,,all the evidence in the Morgantaler clinic bombing
suggests that they blew up their own clinic. The CSIS (Canadian Security
Intelligence Service) undercover intelligence agent stated that the clinic was
blown up so the government could come down on the pro-life people, he even
named the person who blew up the clinic. Were was the media outrage? Were was
the demand to know the facts and present the truth? I guess they, the media,
'choose' not to persue the truth and let the facts be known. I guess it would
be accurate to suggest that the media is pro-choice after all.
It is interesting to me that the pro-abortionists always think someone else is
better of dead.
BTW It is my opnion that the underpinning of the 'choice' movement is a
population control agenda.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: > Point #1: The Canadian Press Style Book tells reporters to respect the
: > self-identification of other groups, thus "pro-life" is the preferred
: > term for pro-life groups and pro-choice groups cannot be called
: > "pro-abortion". I don't know how other news agencies handle such
: > things, but "the media" isn't particularly interested in grinding just
: > one side of this axe.
:
: This is absolutely not true and the facts demonstrate this well.
As Daffy Duck once said, "Pronoun trouble." By "this" you mean ... what?
Allow me to quote page 24 of the CP Style Book, which states, "When
writing about abortion, use the general terms _anti-abortion_, _pro-life_,
_pro-choice_ and _pro-abortion_, whichever is preferred by the person or
organization involved. When a term is too general, be specific."
: The majority of the media coverage has a pro-abortion bias. This is
: evidenced by the lack of properly publishing the plight of the babies.
What does *that* mean? Because they aren't grinding *your* axe, you
assume they must be grinding somebody else's?
The fact that abortions take place at clinics and hospitals isn't news.
The fact that protestors stand outside such places isn't news. The only
stories there are dog-bites-man stories ... unless someone is killed, or a
"bubble zone" law is passed, or a "bubble zone" law is struck down by the
courts, that sort of thing. In the absence of such dramatics, the only
stories you'll find are the kind produced in advocacy publications.
: Yet you call the media term pro-choice accurate and also suggest that as
: many people involved in the pro-life movement are for the death penalty
: they are disqualified from being called pro-life.
I have no problem whatsoever calling people like Ron Sider "pro-life". I
have a *big* problem applying the term to people who support the death
penalty and/or neglect babies *after* they've been born.
: BTW were did you get your stats?
I didn't offer any. Nor did you. Are they relevant?
: > Point #2: The term "anti-abortion" is really the more accurate term,
: > since many, if not most, people involved in the so-calked pro-life
: > cause also support the death penalty and the military and have little
: > interest in contributing to the well-being of the fetus *after* it is
: > born.
:
: Of all the people invovled in contributing to the well-being of the
: 'fetus' after it is born it is predominately the pro-life people.
That may well be, but is that enough? Is it enough to say that most of
the people who run food banks, support adequate welfare programs, and so
forth are pro-life? I don't think so.
It *might* be adequate if you flipped it around and said that most of the
people who are pro-life also happen to run food banks, etc. But at the
moment the pro-life movement just doesn't project that image. And it
doesn't help when Christian pro-lifers turn away potential allies such as
pro-life gays. (In the latest _Xtra West_, a Vancouver-area bi-weekly
that caters to the gay & lesbian market, there's a small story on The
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, whose vice-president Thomas Sena
claims that his group was banned from participating in the 26th Annual
March for Life in Washington D.C. last January under threat of arrest.)
It suggests the pro-lifers in question are more interested in pushing a
narrow religious ideology than they are in actually saving lives.
: A youth once told me that he was tired of all the outreaches being run
: by Christians, I suggested he may want to question why it is only the
: Christians that care enough about his well being to offer free food and
: clothing, a coffee house to hang out in etc.(and many programs).
Maybe because they like having a monopoly? (I'm partly kidding. But,
given the allegation relayed above, partly not.)
: If it'a accuracy you want,,,all the evidence in the Morgantaler clinic
: bombing suggests that they blew up their own clinic. The CSIS (Canadian
: Security Intelligence Service) undercover intelligence agent stated
: that the clinic was blown up so the government could come down on the
: pro-life people, he even named the person who blew up the clinic. Were
: was the media outrage? Were was the demand to know the facts and present
: the truth?
More to the point, where are your references? Where is your evidence? At
this point, it's all hearsay from where I sit. If you want to make
allegations of this sort, you had best be able to back them up. Otherwise
you may have a defamation lawsuit to deal with.
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
RDyer14145
>: > Point #1: The Canadian Press Style Book tells reporters to respect the
>: > self-identification of other groups, thus "pro-life" is the preferred
>: > term for pro-life groups and pro-choice groups cannot be called
>: > "pro-abortion". I don't know how other news agencies handle such
>: > things, but "the media" isn't particularly interested in grinding just
>: > one side of this axe.
>:
>: This is absolutely not true and the facts demonstrate this well.
>
>As Daffy Duck once said, "Pronoun trouble." By "this" you mean ... what?
'This' means that the point your are presenting is not true and the facts
demonstrate 'this'.
>
>Allow me to quote page 24 of the CP Style Book, which states, "When
>writing about abortion, use the general terms _anti-abortion_, _pro-life_,
>_pro-choice_ and _pro-abortion_, whichever is preferred by the person or
>organization involved. When a term is too general, be specific."
Are you suggesting that the majority of pro-life organizations and persons
prefer to be called anti-abortion? For 'this' is how they are presented in the
media.
>: The majority of the media coverage has a pro-abortion bias. This is
>: evidenced by the lack of properly publishing the plight of the babies.
>
>What does *that* mean? Because they aren't grinding *your* axe, you
>assume they must be grinding somebody else's?
>
Too silly a question to answer. What about the plight of the babies?
>The fact that abortions take place at clinics and hospitals isn't news.
>The fact that protestors stand outside such places isn't news. The only
>stories there are dog-bites-man stories ... unless someone is killed, or a
>"bubble zone" law is passed, or a "bubble zone" law is struck down by the
>courts, that sort of thing. In the absence of such dramatics, the only
>stories you'll find are the kind produced in advocacy publications.
The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been properly
represented in the media. I called the media and asked why they don't show what
happens to the babies, they said they don't show that kind of 'garbage',,,what
garbage the 'truth'?
BTW 'truth' means to actually show what is really happening so as to inform the
public of the reality of the event.
>
>: Yet you call the media term pro-choice accurate and also suggest that as
>: many people involved in the pro-life movement are for the death penalty
>: they are disqualified from being called pro-life.
>
>I have no problem whatsoever calling people like Ron Sider "pro-life". I
>have a *big* problem applying the term to people who support the death
>penalty and/or neglect babies *after* they've been born.
Again,( meaning you did not answer this from the previous post), you suggest
the term pro-choice is accurate, do they champion for the choice as to whether
to wear a seatbelt or not, how about my choice to pay taxes or not, or maybe it
should be my choice whether I go to jail after an offense. Yet you say nothing
about how inaccurate the term pro-choice is? Why is 'that'.
>
>: BTW were did you get your stats?
>
>I didn't offer any. Nor did you. Are they relevant?
When you suggest that most pro-life people do not care about the baby after it
is born I would like to know were you get your stats from,,,or is that just
your subjective opnion? Fair question?
>
>: > Point #2: The term "anti-abortion" is really the more accurate term,
>: > since many, if not most, people involved in the so-calked pro-life
>: > cause also support the death penalty and the military and have little
>: > interest in contributing to the well-being of the fetus *after* it is
>: > born.
>:
>: Of all the people invovled in contributing to the well-being of the
>: 'fetus' after it is born it is predominately the pro-life people.
>
>That may well be, but is that enough? Is it enough to say that most of
>the people who run food banks, support adequate welfare programs, and so
>forth are pro-life? I don't think so.
>
What are the pro-abortionists offering,,,death of a baby, that is it. Come let
us kill your baby and scar you for life.
>It *might* be adequate if you flipped it around and said that most of the
>people who are pro-life also happen to run food banks, etc. But at the
>moment the pro-life movement just doesn't project that image. And it
>doesn't help when Christian pro-lifers turn away potential allies such as
>pro-life gays. (In the latest _Xtra West_, a Vancouver-area bi-weekly
>that caters to the gay & lesbian market, there's a small story on The
>Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, whose vice-president Thomas Sena
>claims that his group was banned from participating in the 26th Annual
>March for Life in Washington D.C. last January under threat of arrest.)
>It suggests the pro-lifers in question are more interested in pushing a
>narrow religious ideology than they are in actually saving lives.
I have been on that march and I would question how you could stop someone if
they wanted to march. How do I know who is beside me, and why would I care,
they are just considered to be a fellow pro-life advocate. And how could the
organizers arrest people for marching for life or being Gay or Lesbian? This
story at this point sounds a little thin.
>
>: A youth once told me that he was tired of all the outreaches being run
>: by Christians, I suggested he may want to question why it is only the
>: Christians that care enough about his well being to offer free food and
>: clothing, a coffee house to hang out in etc.(and many programs).
>
>Maybe because they like having a monopoly? (I'm partly kidding. But,
>given the allegation relayed above, partly not.)
>
Maybe because nobody else cares. Anybody can open a place but it appears it is
mostly Christians who are selfless enough to give of themselves for the better
of others.
>: If it'a accuracy you want,,,all the evidence in the Morgantaler clinic
>: bombing suggests that they blew up their own clinic. The CSIS (Canadian
>: Security Intelligence Service) undercover intelligence agent stated
>: that the clinic was blown up so the government could come down on the
>: pro-life people, he even named the person who blew up the clinic. Were
>: was the media outrage? Were was the demand to know the facts and present
>: the truth?
>
>More to the point, where are your references? Where is your evidence? At
>this point, it's all hearsay from where I sit. If you want to make
>allegations of this sort, you had best be able to back them up. Otherwise
>you may have a defamation lawsuit to deal with.
>
References,,,did you read the post? I mentioned the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service,,,
Do you know how to do research? Look under the freedom of information act.
These allegations are well known and have been published,,I am surprised you
have not read this before.
Pretty difficult to sue someone for telling the truth.
More to the point, it is the lack of outrage by the media for the Hitler like
tactics that is the issue. The bombing and the finger pointing at pro-life
people was front page. One would think this new data would be all over the
front page. Nope.
snail
>More to the point, it is the lack of outrage by the media for the Hitler like
>tactics that is the issue. The bombing and the finger pointing at pro-life
That's it. Hitler has been mentioned[1]. I invoke Godwin's Law.
End of discussion.
[1]
"Rule #4: (Godwin's Rule) Any off-topic mention of Hitler or Nazis will cause
the thread it is mentioned in to an irrelevant and off-topic end very soon;
every thread on UseNet has a constantly-increasing probability to contain
such a mention.
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is
ineffectual.
Case's Corollary: If the subject is Heinlein or homosexuality, the
probability of a Hitler/Nazi comparison being made becomes equal to one.
from: <http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~tskirvin/faqs/legends/legends2.html>"
RDyer14145
>RDyer14145 <rdyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>>More to the point, it is the lack of outrage by the media for the Hitler
>like
>>tactics that is the issue. The bombing and the finger pointing at pro-life
>
>That's it. Hitler has been mentioned[1]. I invoke Godwin's Law.
>End of discussion.
>
If you paid any attention to the point as opposed to a knee-jerk juvenile
reaction you would have noticed that the mention of Hitler was very much a
relevant comparison. Hitler as we know by history records had buildings bombed
then blamed the Jews so as to insight anger against Jewish people. The bombing
of the Morgantaler abortion clinic appears by some reports to have been
employing the same strategy, bomb the building and blame pro-life. Get the
connection?? Therefore the reference is not irrelevant or off-topic.
You can invoke what you like, if this means an end of your contributions to
this discussion I whole heartedly support you.
snail
>>RDyer14145 <rdyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>More to the point, it is the lack of outrage by the media for the Hitler
>>End of discussion.
>If you paid any attention to the point as opposed to a knee-jerk juvenile
>reaction you would have noticed that the mention of Hitler was very much a
>relevant comparison. Hitler as we know by history records had buildings bombed
You've missed the point. When Hitler gets mentioned in a discussion
it usually means said discussion is degenerating into little more
than a flamewar. Which is what is happening here. eg your 'juvenile
reaction' comment being an example. You could have chosen to reject
or ignore my comments, however you responded with insults instead.
You need to cool down, step back and take a few deep breaths.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: > : > Point #1: The Canadian Press Style Book tells reporters to respect
: > : > the self-identification of other groups, thus "pro-life" is the
: > : > preferred term for pro-life groups and pro-choice groups cannot be
: > : > called "pro-abortion". I don't know how other news agencies
: > : > handle such things, but "the media" isn't particularly interested
: > : > in grinding just one side of this axe.
: > :
: > : This is absolutely not true and the facts demonstrate this well.
: >
: > As Daffy Duck once said, "Pronoun trouble." By "this" you mean ...
: > what?
:
: 'This' means that the point your are presenting is not true and the
: facts demonstrate 'this'.
Oh brudda. Answer the question, please. By "the point your [sic] are
presenting" you mean ... what? What the CP Style Book says? Or whether
the media has an axe to grind? Or what?
: > Allow me to quote page 24 of the CP Style Book, which states, "When
: > writing about abortion, use the general terms _anti-abortion_,
: > _pro-life_, _pro-choice_ and _pro-abortion_, whichever is preferred by
: > the person or organization involved. When a term is too general, be
: > specific."
:
: Are you suggesting that the majority of pro-life organizations and
: persons prefer to be called anti-abortion? For 'this' is how they are
: presented in the media.
There is no such thing as "the media". The media -- a plural term -- are
a collection of reporters from many different papers, broadcasters, and
news agencies, all of whom have different perspectives and different
reasons for being involved in the whole journalism thing.
Some may indeed present anti-abortionists in a negative light. Others may
not. All I can tell you here is that the Canadian Press has advocated, in
print, the principle that groups involved in this highly contentious issue
ought to be allowed to identify themselves however they see fit.
: > : The majority of the media coverage has a pro-abortion bias. This is
: > : evidenced by the lack of properly publishing the plight of the
: > : babies.
: >
: > What does *that* mean? Because they aren't grinding *your* axe, you
: > assume they must be grinding somebody else's?
:
: Too silly a question to answer. What about the plight of the babies?
What about the plight of men who are bitten by dogs? It happens all the
time, it's not illegal, and it's not news.
If you want a paper to report on every abortion that takes place, you are
essentially asking that paper to grind an axe on your behalf. Some
papers, of course, will do this. But not most. That does not make them
automatically your enemies.
: The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been properly
: represented in the media. I called the media . . .
No you didn't. You called a newspaper, or you called a radio station, or
you called a TV station, but you did not call "the media".
: > I have no problem whatsoever calling people like Ron Sider "pro-life".
: > I have a *big* problem applying the term to people who support the
: > death penalty and/or neglect babies *after* they've been born.
:
: Again, (meaning you did not answer this from the previous post), you
: suggest the term pro-choice is accurate . . .
As far as the abortion issue is concerned, yes, the term is probably
accurate. I see no reason to dispute it.
Of course, you can argue that *real* pro-choicers would do more than make
it easier to kill your fetus. You can argue that *real* pro-choicers
would advocate programs that make it easier to *keep* your baby and, thus,
pregnant women would feel they had more options to choose from and, thus,
they would truly have a choice.
By the same token, you can argue that *real* pro-lifers would pay more
attention to saving lives than keeping pro-life gays and pro-life
non-Christians out of the movement. You can argue that *real* pro-lifers
would advocate programs that make it easier for women to choose to keep
their babies, knowing they won't be abandoned once they've given birth.
If you want to argue that the term "pro-choice" is inaccurate, fine, but
then you'd have to argue that the term "pro-life" is inaccurate, too.
Does that really help your case? I don't think so.
: > : BTW were did you get your stats?
: >
: > I didn't offer any. Nor did you. Are they relevant?
:
: When you suggest that most pro-life people do not care about the baby
: after it is born . . .
Did I say that, or did I only "suggest" it? In other words, did I say it,
or did you only infer it?
: What are the pro-abortionists offering,,,death of a baby, that is it.
Thing is, there are very few pro-abortionists. Virtually nobody is *for*
abortion, they just think that it's sometimes the lesser of evils. And
even people who wouldn't go *that* far will still tell you that they
defend the other person's right to choose -- in other words, there are
people who are pro-life *and* pro-choice.
: > And it doesn't help when Christian pro-lifers turn away potential
: > allies such as pro-life gays. (In the latest _Xtra West_, a
: > Vancouver-area bi-weekly that caters to the gay & lesbian market,
: > there's a small story on The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians,
: > whose vice-president Thomas Sena claims that his group was banned from
: > participating in the 26th Annual March for Life in Washington D.C.
: > last January under threat of arrest.) It suggests the pro-lifers in
: > question are more interested in pushing a narrow religious ideology
: > than they are in actually saving lives.
:
: I have been on that march and I would question how you could stop
: someone if they wanted to march.
By calling the police, apparently.
: How do I know who is beside me, and why would I care, they are just
: considered to be a fellow pro-life advocate. And how could the
: organizers arrest people for marching for life or being Gay or Lesbian?
Presumably -- and I'm speculating here -- the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays
and Lesbians had banners or T-shirts or something that identified them;
presumably they wanted to bring an extra degree of credibility to the
pro-life march by showing that it wasn't just a right-wing Christian
thing. Instead, the Christians running the show got jittery, told the
police that there were some interloping troublemaking gay people there,
and the police told the group to leave lest there be any problems. The
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians wanted to bring that extra degree
of credibility to the movement by supporting it, and instead the people
running the show shot themselves in the foot. Presumably.
I haven't talked to mister Sena myself, so I don't know what the exact
details are, but there's certainly nothing inherently implausible about
his story.
: > : If it'a accuracy you want,,,all the evidence in the Morgantaler
: > : clinic bombing suggests that they blew up their own clinic. The
: > : CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) undercover
: > : intelligence agent stated that the clinic was blown up so the
: > : government could come down on the pro-life people, he even named
: > : the person who blew up the clinic. Were was the media outrage? Were
: > : was the demand to know the facts and present the truth?
: >
: > More to the point, where are your references? Where is your evidence?
: > At this point, it's all hearsay from where I sit. If you want to make
: > allegations of this sort, you had best be able to back them up.
: > Otherwise you may have a defamation lawsuit to deal with.
:
: References,,,did you read the post? I mentioned the Canadian Security
: Intelligence Service,,,
I suppose I could track it down, call them up, look for the undercover
agent who named names, bla bla bla, but if the story's already out there,
it'd be simpler if you just provided a link to it or something like that.
: Do you know how to do research?
Yup. But since you're the one with a case to prove, it's in your best
interests to make it easier for me.
: These allegations are well known and have been published,,I am surprised
: you have not read this before.
There are *lots* of things I haven't read before. If it's been published,
I would like to see a reference, a footnote, something precise.
--
Jerry B. Ray
RDyer14145 <rdyer...@aol.com> wrote:
>>That's it. Hitler has been mentioned[1]. I invoke Godwin's Law.
>>End of discussion.
>If you paid any attention to the point as opposed to a knee-jerk juvenile
>reaction you would have noticed that the mention of Hitler was very much a
>relevant comparison.
It's called a sense of humor. Look into it.
JRjr
--
%%%%% vap...@prism.gatech.edu %%%%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Hope springs eternal once in awhile"
-- Mark Heard, "Another Day In Limbo" --
RDyer14145
>RDyer14145 (rdyer...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: > : > Point #1: The Canadian Press Style Book tells reporters to respect
>: > : > the self-identification of other groups, thus "pro-life" is the
>: > : > preferred term for pro-life groups and pro-choice groups cannot be
>: > : > called "pro-abortion". I don't know how other news agencies
>: > : > handle such things, but "the media" isn't particularly interested
>: > : > in grinding just one side of this axe.
>: > :
>: > : This is absolutely not true and the facts demonstrate this well.
>: >
>: > As Daffy Duck once said, "Pronoun trouble." By "this" you mean ...
>: > what?
>:
>: 'This' means that the point your are presenting is not true and the
>: facts demonstrate 'this'.
>
>Oh brudda. Answer the question, please. By "the point your [sic] are
>presenting" you mean ... what? What the CP Style Book says? Or whether
>the media has an axe to grind? Or what?
The answer to the question is there to see. The media has demonstrated an
interest in grinding just one side of the axe. The population control side.
>
>: > Allow me to quote page 24 of the CP Style Book, which states, "When
>: > writing about abortion, use the general terms _anti-abortion_,
>: > _pro-life_, _pro-choice_ and _pro-abortion_, whichever is preferred by
>: > the person or organization involved. When a term is too general, be
>: > specific."
>:
>: Are you suggesting that the majority of pro-life organizations and
>: persons prefer to be called anti-abortion? For 'this' is how they are
>: presented in the media.
>
>There is no such thing as "the media". The media -- a plural term -- are
>a collection of reporters from many different papers, broadcasters, and
>news agencies, all of whom have different perspectives and different
>reasons for being involved in the whole journalism thing.
>
>Some may indeed present anti-abortionists in a negative light. Others may
>not. All I can tell you here is that the Canadian Press has advocated, in
>print, the principle that groups involved in this highly contentious issue
>ought to be allowed to identify themselves however they see fit.
Looks nice on paper. But is it reflected in practice?
>
>: > : The majority of the media coverage has a pro-abortion bias. This is
>: > : evidenced by the lack of properly publishing the plight of the
>: > : babies.
>: >
>: > What does *that* mean? Because they aren't grinding *your* axe, you
>: > assume they must be grinding somebody else's?
>:
>: Too silly a question to answer. What about the plight of the babies?
>
>What about the plight of men who are bitten by dogs? It happens all the
>time, it's not illegal, and it's not news.
But if a child is bitten by a dog, the picture of the child is often shown in
the papers, t.v. etc. as well as a description of the wounds, stitches etc. Why
ignore what the babies go through in the abortion procedure?
>
>If you want a paper to report on every abortion that takes place, you are
>essentially asking that paper to grind an axe on your behalf. Some
>papers, of course, will do this. But not most. That does not make them
>automatically your enemies.
How about just showing what the babies go through in a general sense. Every
time an article appears on abortion it should be balanced with a reprentation
of all the major views, i.e. pro-life, pro-abortion, and the babies view and
plight, for they (the babies) are the most involved and have the highest
interest as their life is on the line.
It is like writing about a holocaust and ignoring the victims, or briefly
stating that some people think there are victims but never showing them.
To report on every abortion is again to silly to comment on.
>: The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been properly
>: represented in the media. I called the media . . .
>
>No you didn't. You called a newspaper, or you called a radio station, or
>you called a TV station, but you did not call "the media".
Perhaps I called all of the above.
>
>: > I have no problem whatsoever calling people like Ron Sider "pro-life".
>: > I have a *big* problem applying the term to people who support the
>: > death penalty and/or neglect babies *after* they've been born.
>:
>: Again, (meaning you did not answer this from the previous post), you
>: suggest the term pro-choice is accurate . . .
>
>As far as the abortion issue is concerned, yes, the term is probably
>accurate. I see no reason to dispute it.
Yet you take the term pro-life outside the abortion issue to disqualify it,
bringing in an argument about military and the death penalty etc. Can't have it
both ways.
I would suggest that within the abortion argument the term pro-life is
accurate.
>
>Of course, you can argue that *real* pro-choicers would do more than make
>it easier to kill your fetus. You can argue that *real* pro-choicers
>would advocate programs that make it easier to *keep* your baby and, thus,
>pregnant women would feel they had more options to choose from and, thus,
>they would truly have a choice.
I like your argument here. It is well said.
>By the same token, you can argue that *real* pro-lifers would pay more
>attention to saving lives than keeping pro-life gays and pro-life
>non-Christians out of the movement. You can argue that *real* pro-lifers
>would advocate programs that make it easier for women to choose to keep
>their babies, knowing they won't be abandoned once they've given birth.
>
Firstly, I do not think it is fair to dismiss the vast amount of work and
support pro-life people offer because of alligations regarding a one day event.
In other words I think it is an unfair comparison.
Secondly, it is pro-lifers who advocate and in some cases develop and initiate
programs that assist women after they have had their baby.
As well it should be mentioned that it is the pro-life community that developed
councelling for women who suffer after having an abortion. It is caled
post-abortion syndrome, and the goal is to work with the women to eleviate
their suffering from the abortion experience.
What people are being blocked from the pro-life movement just because they are
not Christian?
>If you want to argue that the term "pro-choice" is inaccurate, fine, but
>then you'd have to argue that the term "pro-life" is inaccurate, too.
>Does that really help your case? I don't think so.
>
>: > : BTW were did you get your stats?
>: >
>: > I didn't offer any. Nor did you. Are they relevant?
>:
>: When you suggest that most pro-life people do not care about the baby
>: after it is born . . .
>
>Did I say that, or did I only "suggest" it? In other words, did I say it,
>or did you only infer it?
>
Read your posts,,you said it,,most pro-life people,,,and as you proposed an
argument with resect to accuracy I merely suggest you adhere to your own
standard.
>: What are the pro-abortionists offering,,,death of a baby, that is it.
>
>Thing is, there are very few pro-abortionists. Virtually nobody is *for*
>abortion, they just think that it's sometimes the lesser of evils. And
>even people who wouldn't go *that* far will still tell you that they
>defend the other person's right to choose -- in other words, there are
>people who are pro-life *and* pro-choice.
>
Take a look at China,,,were is the right to choose?
Ted Turner spoke the other day at a Family Planning conference and suggested if
all people had just one child then by 'X' # of years the planet would be back
to a managable 2 billion people. According to the radio Turner suggested that
he was not opposed to government coercion to accomplish this task. Sounds a
little like the Chinese policy to me.
Read some of the published material by Margaret Sanger founder of planned
parenthood. It demonstrates the same arrogance of the 'elite' as was seen in
the movie the Titanic when they left the gates locked on the lower decks and
made the life boats available to the upper class. They are for choice alright,
the choice of the Ted Turner's to control the population and has little to do
with an individuals 'right' to choose.
What I am saying here is that the underpinnings of the 'pro-choice' movement is
population control. It is a matter of who gets 'the choice',,,perhaps soon it
will be the state. I'm sure they will present it as the lesser of evils.
>: > And it doesn't help when Christian pro-lifers turn away potential
>: > allies such as pro-life gays. (In the latest _Xtra West_, a
>: > Vancouver-area bi-weekly that caters to the gay & lesbian market,
>: > there's a small story on The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians,
>: > whose vice-president Thomas Sena claims that his group was banned from
>: > participating in the 26th Annual March for Life in Washington D.C.
>: > last January under threat of arrest.) It suggests the pro-lifers in
>: > question are more interested in pushing a narrow religious ideology
>: > than they are in actually saving lives.
>:
>: I have been on that march and I would question how you could stop
>: someone if they wanted to march.
>
>By calling the police, apparently.
>
If you are not unruley how can the police stop you?
>: How do I know who is beside me, and why would I care, they are just
>: considered to be a fellow pro-life advocate. And how could the
>: organizers arrest people for marching for life or being Gay or Lesbian?
>
>Presumably -- and I'm speculating here -- the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays
>and Lesbians had banners or T-shirts or something that identified them;
>presumably they wanted to bring an extra degree of credibility to the
>pro-life march by showing that it wasn't just a right-wing Christian
>thing. Instead, the Christians running the show got jittery, told the
>police that there were some interloping troublemaking gay people there,
>and the police told the group to leave lest there be any problems. The
>Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians wanted to bring that extra degree
>of credibility to the movement by supporting it, and instead the people
>running the show shot themselves in the foot. Presumably.
>
>I haven't talked to mister Sena myself, so I don't know what the exact
>details are, but there's certainly nothing inherently implausible about
>his story.
>
I am still curious as to what law would the police employ to stop someone from
participating in a legal, peaceful march?
>: > : If it'a accuracy you want,,,all the evidence in the Morgantaler
>: > : clinic bombing suggests that they blew up their own clinic. The
>: > : CSIS (Canadian Security Intelligence Service) undercover
>: > : intelligence agent stated that the clinic was blown up so the
>: > : government could come down on the pro-life people, he even named
>: > : the person who blew up the clinic. Were was the media outrage? Were
>: > : was the demand to know the facts and present the truth?
>: >
>: > More to the point, where are your references? Where is your evidence?
>: > At this point, it's all hearsay from where I sit. If you want to make
>: > allegations of this sort, you had best be able to back them up.
>: > Otherwise you may have a defamation lawsuit to deal with.
>:
>: References,,,did you read the post? I mentioned the Canadian Security
>: Intelligence Service,,,
>
>I suppose I could track it down, call them up, look for the undercover
>agent who named names, bla bla bla, but if the story's already out there,
>it'd be simpler if you just provided a link to it or something like that.
Check the Toronto Star, if I can find a copy of the artical I'll post you the
date etc.
>: Do you know how to do research?
>
>Yup. But since you're the one with a case to prove, it's in your best
>interests to make it easier for me.
>
>: These allegations are well known and have been published,,I am surprised
>: you have not read this before.
>
>There are *lots* of things I haven't read before. If it's been published,
>I would like to see a reference, a footnote, something precise.
As I said if I can find a copy I'll post you the date etc. It was several years
ago that the info appeared as part of a larger article.
BTW subsequent articles have presented that the documents obtained under the
freedom of information act have the name of the person suspected of blowing up
the clinic blackened out because the name falls under the category of
'sensitive material'.
RDyer14145
>it usually means said discussion is degenerating into little more
>than a flamewar. Which is what is happening here. eg your 'juvenile
>reaction' comment being an example. You could have chosen to reject
>or ignore my comments, however you responded with insults instead.
>
>You need to cool down, step back and take a few deep breaths.
>--
>snail
I would dissagree with your analysis.
Firstly, the comparison was legit. Hitler employed strategies that are
presented as historically accurate. If we now appear to see the same strategies
being employed why is it considered 'degenerating into little more than a flame
war' to present the comparison?
To call people who dissagree with you 'nazies' etc, just because they dissagree
with your point can be considered 'degenerating into little more than a flame
war'. But this was not the case, it was a reference made on the bases of
similar strategies employed to obtain a similar results.
I feel your response was a juvenile knee-jerk reaction. As this post
demonstrates it is you who appears to have missed the point and simply offered
an underdeveloped sensational reacton to the word Hitler. I would consider that
a juvenile response.
This is merely my opinion.
Bruce H. McIntosh
> > : a few by both christian and non-christian artists and I'm always looking
> > : for more. If you have the lyrics to a good song I would greatly
> >
> > : appreciate it if you would pass it along to me. I did however pick up
> >
> > My favorite pro-life songs are "Execution" by Grammatrain and
> > "Whatever happened to sin?" by Steve Taylor.
Another Steve Taylor effort to add to the list would be "Baby Doe" (I
*think* that was the name) on MELTDOWN. There's also a topical
reference in "Bad Rap", to wit:
You save the whales / You save the seals
You save whatever's cute and squeals
But you kill that thing / That's in the womb
Would not want no baby boom
Also include AD's "Games of Chance and Circumstance" (ART OF THE STATE)
and Keaggy's "The Survivor" (on UNDERGROUND, redone on TRUE BELIEVERS).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce H. McIntosh scot...@afn.org http://www.afn.org/~scotsman
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network geek with a strong affinity for Telecasters
Snapp
snail wrote:
> RDyer14145 <rdyer...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>RDyer14145 <rdyer...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>More to the point, it is the lack of outrage by the media for the Hitler
> >>That's it. Hitler has been mentioned[1]. I invoke Godwin's Law.
> >>End of discussion.
>
> >If you paid any attention to the point as opposed to a knee-jerk juvenile
> >reaction you would have noticed that the mention of Hitler was very much a
> >relevant comparison. Hitler as we know by history records had buildings bombed
>
> You've missed the point. When Hitler gets mentioned in a discussion
> it usually means said discussion is degenerating into little more
> than a flamewar. Which is what is happening here. eg your 'juvenile
> reaction' comment being an example. You could have chosen to reject
> or ignore my comments, however you responded with insults instead.
>
Gotta step in here, so even if it's relevant, Hitler can't be mentioned?
Granted, most people throw that name around without any basis, just to
intimidate when out of ideas (or rhetoric); but he was one of the most infamous
figures of this century.
I helped out in a survey a friend did for his thesis, where we interviewed
over a thousand college students from our area (Johns Hopkins, Uof M, and a few
more). The survey was broke down into two sections: the first,basic Bill of Rights
questions
(which the students did terrible); the second section was large bits of several
speeches by an un-named person. The students where asked A) if they agreed with the
person, and B) if they would vote for this person. Close to 80% of the students
said YES to both A and B, although they weren't told that they just agreed with
Adolph Hitler.
Is the name over-used? Yes; Is it still relevant, Yes!
Mike "Music please!!!!"
loserboy
>>What about the plight of men who are bitten by dogs? It
>>happens all the time, it's not illegal, and it's not news.
>
>But if a child is bitten by a dog, the picture of the child is
>often shown in the papers, t.v. etc. as well as a description of
>the wounds, stitches etc.
really?!? i was bitten by a dog when i was eight. why wasn't
i on the news? i should be famous, dammit!
glenn, where's *my* water buffalo?
--
yoU StrIPpEd aWay AnY NORmAliTy; a LiFE In nUMbNesS mY rEAlitY
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt1636b
liArS CAn'T BE tRUsTed...
Norman Leach
>It's called a sense of humor. Look into it.
>
>JRjr
i'm not familiar with those...can they be purchased? what's the going rate?
norm
snail
>I feel your response was a juvenile knee-jerk reaction. As this post
>demonstrates it is you who appears to have missed the point and simply offered
>an underdeveloped sensational reacton to the word Hitler. I would consider that
>a juvenile response.
So, how many times do you plan to label me 'juvenile' ?
>This is merely my opinion.
I don't care what it is, it's still insulting and uncalled for.
RDyer14145
>>I feel your response was a juvenile knee-jerk reaction. As this post
>>demonstrates it is you who appears to have missed the point and simply
>offered
>>an underdeveloped sensational reacton to the word Hitler. I would consider
>that
>>a juvenile response.
>
>So, how many times do you plan to label me 'juvenile' ?
>
>>This is merely my opinion.
>
>I don't care what it is, it's still insulting and uncalled for.
>--
>snail
I labelled the response 'juvenile' and it is my opinion that it was. Notice I
said "I feel your response was a juvenile....."
I will address this as long as you challenge me on it. This would be considered
defending myself.
It was you who chose to jump into this discussion with an ill thought out
opinion based on my use of an analogy involving Hitler.
I suggest this exchange has reached it's conclusion.
RDyer14145
The difficulty is in finding someone with an extra one.
It is possible to find them unused, but many still want to hang onto them
anyway, possibly just trying to drive up the market value.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: > : > : > I don't know how other news agencies handle such things, but
: > : > : > "the media" isn't particularly interested in grinding just one
: > : > : > side of this axe.
: > : > :
: > : > : This is absolutely not true and the facts demonstrate this well.
: >
: > Oh brudda. Answer the question, please. By "the point your [sic] are
: > presenting" you mean ... what? What the CP Style Book says? Or
: > whether the media has an axe to grind? Or what?
:
: The answer to the question is there to see. The media has demonstrated
: an interest in grinding just one side of the axe.
Well, at least you've clarified which point you were responding to.
Certain reporters may have an axe to grind. But they are not "the media",
any more than you or I are "the pro-life movment".
Incidentally, pro-life views *do* get expressed in the media up here, even
in oh-so-liberal Canada. To wit, there was this column by Mark Steyn in
_The National Post_:
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary.asp?s2=columnists&s3=steyn&f=981212/2096422.html
: > Some may indeed present anti-abortionists in a negative light. Others
: > may not. All I can tell you here is that the Canadian Press has
: > advocated, in print, the principle that groups involved in this highly
: > contentious issue ought to be allowed to identify themselves however
: > they see fit.
:
: Looks nice on paper. But is it reflected in practice?
Depends on who's practising it.
: > : Too silly a question to answer. What about the plight of the babies?
: >
: > What about the plight of men who are bitten by dogs? It happens all
: > the time, it's not illegal, and it's not news.
:
: But if a child is bitten by a dog, the picture of the child is often
: shown in the papers, t.v. etc. as well as a description of the wounds,
: stitches etc.
Only if they're *really* hard up for news, or if there are people calling
for the banning of pit bulls as pets, or something.
: Why ignore what the babies go through in the abortion procedure?
Why exploit it for television's sake?
: > If you want a paper to report on every abortion that takes place, you
: > are essentially asking that paper to grind an axe on your behalf.
: > Some papers, of course, will do this. But not most. That does not
: > make them automatically your enemies.
:
: How about just showing what the babies go through in a general sense.
: Every time an article appears on abortion it should be balanced with a
: reprentation of all the major views, i.e. pro-life, pro-abortion, and
: the babies view and plight, for they (the babies) are the most involved
: and have the highest interest as their life is on the line.
"Every time"? Impossible. There are more than two points of view on the
abortion issue. Way more. There's no way you could "balance" them all.
Especially in the typical six- or twelve-inch story. You can only talk to
those people who are immediately involved in whatever story you're working
on -- if a doctor is shot, for instance, you'd want to talk to his family
and to the people who witnessed the shooting, plus you'd want to get a
quick comment from both sides of the abortion debate -- and that's it.
: > : The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been
: > : properly represented in the media. I called the media . . .
: >
: > No you didn't. You called a newspaper, or you called a radio station,
: > or you called a TV station, but you did not call "the media".
:
: Perhaps I called all of the above.
Doubtful, unless you called *every* newspaper and *every* radio station
and *every* TV station in the world (or, to keep things easy for you,
every one of those in the country).
: > : Again, (meaning you did not answer this from the previous post), you
: > : suggest the term pro-choice is accurate . . .
: >
: > As far as the abortion issue is concerned, yes, the term is probably
: > accurate. I see no reason to dispute it.
:
: Yet you take the term pro-life outside the abortion issue to disqualify
: it, bringing in an argument about military and the death penalty etc.
How does that disqualify the term "pro-life"? Some people who are against
abortion are *also* against the death penalty and the military. More
power to them. And some people who are pro-choice are simply that:
pro-*choice*. They're not *for* abortion, they just don't think they
should stand in the way of people who want one.
: > Of course, you can argue that *real* pro-choicers would do more than
: > make it easier to kill your fetus. You can argue that *real*
: > pro-choicers would advocate programs that make it easier to *keep*
: > your baby and, thus, pregnant women would feel they had more options
: > to choose from and, thus, they would truly have a choice.
:
: I like your argument here. It is well said.
Thanks. FWIW, a friend of mine who used to be pro-choice now considers
herself pro-life, partly because, when she became pregnant, all her
friends and associates acted as if abortion was the only real choice she
had; they were surprised when she decided to keep her baby. The fact that
her pro-choice associates weren't making it easier for her to *choose* to
keep the baby was what nudged her away from the pro-choice position.
However, she's not a Christian, and she still expresses concerns that the
pro-life position has been dominated by Christians and, as a result,
non-Christians who might agree with them on this one issue are not
encouraged to join the cause.
: > By the same token, you can argue that *real* pro-lifers would pay more
: > attention to saving lives than keeping pro-life gays and pro-life
: > non-Christians out of the movement. You can argue that *real*
: > pro-lifers would advocate programs that make it easier for women to
: > choose to keep their babies, knowing they won't be abandoned once
: > they've given birth.
:
: Firstly, I do not think it is fair to dismiss the vast amount of work
: and support pro-life people offer because of alligations regarding a one
: day event. In other words I think it is an unfair comparison.
It could be. But it's indicative of at least one trend that the pro-life
movement ought to be fighting (and, for the moment, doesn't appear to be).
: What people are being blocked from the pro-life movement just because
: they are not Christian?
Let's rephrase the question: What is the pro-life movement doing to
persuade people that it is not a religious crusade -- that it is about
protecting life, period, and not about waving some church's flag?
: > Thing is, there are very few pro-abortionists. Virtually nobody is
: > *for* abortion, they just think that it's sometimes the lesser of
: > evils. And even people who wouldn't go *that* far will still tell you
: > that they defend the other person's right to choose -- in other words,
: > there are people who are pro-life *and* pro-choice.
:
: Take a look at China,,,were is the right to choose?
What has China got to do with this? We're talking about North America.
: Ted Turner spoke the other day . . .
Yeah, well, Ted Turner says a lot of things. He's got five kids, doesn't
he?
: What I am saying here is that the underpinnings of the 'pro-choice'
: movement is population control.
I'm not thinking of the *movement* per se, though. I'm thinking of people
who just happen to consider themselves pro-choice. There's a difference.
: > : I have been on that march and I would question how you could stop
: > : someone if they wanted to march.
: >
: > By calling the police, apparently.
:
: If you are not unruley how can the police stop you?
If the march is organized by someone else and you're trying to take part
in it, that may be all they need. *shrug* I dunno, wasn't there.
--
RDyer14145
>
>Certain reporters may have an axe to grind. But they are not "the media",
>any more than you or I are "the pro-life movment".
My understanding was that we were discussing the direction of the main stream
media.
>
>Incidentally, pro-life views *do* get expressed in the media up here, even
>in oh-so-liberal Canada. To wit, there was this column by Mark Steyn in
>_The National Post_:
>
It has been encouraging lately just to see the words pro-life used by some
people in the media. Actually I commented on this to my wife recently.
>http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary.asp?s2=columnists&s3=steyn&f=98121
2/2096422.html
>: Why ignore what the babies go through in the abortion procedure?
>
>Why exploit it for television's sake?
How does showing the truth of what the main victims of abortion go through
become exploiting this truth for television's sake? The plight of the unborn is
the centre piece of the argument, why ignore this in the media? and keep the
general population ignorant of these facts? Again meaning the plight of the
unborn.
>
>: > If you want a paper to report on every abortion that takes place, you
>: > are essentially asking that paper to grind an axe on your behalf.
>: > Some papers, of course, will do this. But not most. That does not
>: > make them automatically your enemies.
>:
>: How about just showing what the babies go through in a general sense.
>: Every time an article appears on abortion it should be balanced with a
>: reprentation of all the major views, i.e. pro-life, pro-abortion, and
>: the babies view and plight, for they (the babies) are the most involved
>: and have the highest interest as their life is on the line.
>
>"Every time"? Impossible. There are more than two points of view on the
>abortion issue. Way more. There's no way you could "balance" them all.
>Especially in the typical six- or twelve-inch story. You can only talk to
>those people who are immediately involved in whatever story you're working
>on -- if a doctor is shot, for instance, you'd want to talk to his family
>and to the people who witnessed the shooting, plus you'd want to get a
>quick comment from both sides of the abortion debate -- and that's it.
>
When a baby is murdered wouldn't want to talk to his/her family? the father?
grandparents?
How about showing what the doctor does to his victims? As somebody's reaction
to the doctors work is probably a leading theory on why that doctor was shot,
perhaps a line or two on the nature of the work.
When I called a local T.V. station it was during the Diagle court case. I
suggested they show what the case was about and from the viewpoint of the
victim (the baby) and I would furnish them with video's of fetal development as
well as victims of saline abortion all at the same age as the Diagle baby. This
of coarse would shed light on why people would care about this case. They
declined stating they did not show that 'garbage'. Well they show plenty of
carnage on the 'tube' so I do not know what they meant by garbage.
>: > : The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been
>: > : properly represented in the media. I called the media . . .
>: >
>: > No you didn't. You called a newspaper, or you called a radio station,
>: > or you called a TV station, but you did not call "the media".
>:
>: Perhaps I called all of the above.
>
>Doubtful, unless you called *every* newspaper and *every* radio station
>and *every* TV station in the world (or, to keep things easy for you,
>every one of those in the country).
Again I was under the impression we were discussing the main stream media. I of
coarse do not have access to 'every' media outlet.
>
>: > : Again, (meaning you did not answer this from the previous post), you
>: > : suggest the term pro-choice is accurate . . .
>: >
>: > As far as the abortion issue is concerned, yes, the term is probably
>: > accurate. I see no reason to dispute it.
>:
>: Yet you take the term pro-life outside the abortion issue to disqualify
>: it, bringing in an argument about military and the death penalty etc.
>
>How does that disqualify the term "pro-life"? Some people who are against
>abortion are *also* against the death penalty and the military. More
>power to them. And some people who are pro-choice are simply that:
>pro-*choice*. They're not *for* abortion, they just don't think they
>should stand in the way of people who want one.
You say that the term pro-choice is accurate within the frame work of the
abortion issue. Yet you disqualify people from considering themselves pro-life
because they are for a military and or the death penalty. What does a convicted
murderer getting what some may consider to be his/her just dues have to do with
the slaughter of innocent unborn babies. You can't have it both ways. Within
the frame work of abortion people can be pro-life, even if they are for the
death penalty as that would have nothing to do with the abortion issue.
>: > Of course, you can argue that *real* pro-choicers would do more than
>: > make it easier to kill your fetus. You can argue that *real*
>: > pro-choicers would advocate programs that make it easier to *keep*
>: > your baby and, thus, pregnant women would feel they had more options
>: > to choose from and, thus, they would truly have a choice.
>:
>: I like your argument here. It is well said.
>
>Thanks. FWIW, a friend of mine who used to be pro-choice now considers
>herself pro-life, partly because, when she became pregnant, all her
>friends and associates acted as if abortion was the only real choice she
>had; they were surprised when she decided to keep her baby. The fact that
>her pro-choice associates weren't making it easier for her to *choose* to
>keep the baby was what nudged her away from the pro-choice position.
>
>However, she's not a Christian, and she still expresses concerns that the
>pro-life position has been dominated by Christians and, as a result,
>non-Christians who might agree with them on this one issue are not
>encouraged to join the cause.
I would suggest that her concerns that the pro-life position has been dominated
by Christians is the basis for her discomfort with her feelings about being
accepted into the cause. I have yet to see anyone turned away because they did
not hold a Christian view. There is a group called Feminists for Life, I
disagree with some of the feminists view and agree with some, but am glad for
their voice for the unborn. I had not heard of a Gay and Lesbian pro-life
group/organization but I am thankful for their voice for the unborn.
It is a credit to the Christian mind set that it has dominated the cause of the
unborn babies.
>: > By the same token, you can argue that *real* pro-lifers would pay more
>: > attention to saving lives than keeping pro-life gays and pro-life
>: > non-Christians out of the movement. You can argue that *real*
>: > pro-lifers would advocate programs that make it easier for women to
>: > choose to keep their babies, knowing they won't be abandoned once
>: > they've given birth.
>:
>: Firstly, I do not think it is fair to dismiss the vast amount of work
>: and support pro-life people offer because of alligations regarding a one
>: day event. In other words I think it is an unfair comparison.
>
>It could be. But it's indicative of at least one trend that the pro-life
>movement ought to be fighting (and, for the moment, doesn't appear to be).
>
>: What people are being blocked from the pro-life movement just because
>: they are not Christian?
>
>Let's rephrase the question: What is the pro-life movement doing to
>persuade people that it is not a religious crusade -- that it is about
>protecting life, period, and not about waving some church's flag?
Again it is to the credit of Christianity that it is considered to dominate the
crusade for the rights of the unborn. Christians call on Jesus for help, they
pray etc. that is how they do battle, on their knees in prayer. The issue is
protecting life, perhaps some are just uncomfortable with the way Christians go
about trying to protect life i.e. praying etc. I have not heard of anyone being
asked to not participate because they were not a Christian. My sense is that
it is the non Christians that are uncomfortable with the Christian world view.
Perhaps they should look past the Christianity and focus on the issue, the
respect for life.
>: > Thing is, there are very few pro-abortionists. Virtually nobody is
>: > *for* abortion, they just think that it's sometimes the lesser of
>: > evils. And even people who wouldn't go *that* far will still tell you
>: > that they defend the other person's right to choose -- in other words,
>: > there are people who are pro-life *and* pro-choice.
>:
>: Take a look at China,,,were is the right to choose?
>
>What has China got to do with this? We're talking about North America.
We are talking about abortion.
>
>: Ted Turner spoke the other day . . .
>
>Yeah, well, Ted Turner says a lot of things. He's got five kids, doesn't
>he?
He still advocates coercion by the government to force one child families. Just
like China. And has the support of some for this direction.
>
>: What I am saying here is that the underpinnings of the 'pro-choice'
>: movement is population control.
>
>I'm not thinking of the *movement* per se, though. I'm thinking of people
>who just happen to consider themselves pro-choice. There's a difference.
I'm having a little trouble following you. Above you talk of the pro-life'
movement, but when we talk of the pro-choice movement you switch to people who
happen to consider themselves pro-choice. You are right there is a difference
and I am sure you are aware that it is the same difference on both sides of the
coin.
I beleive there are those who earnestly feel that the right to choice is the
centre piece of the argument, these are advocates for choice, pro-choice.
I also believe the underpinnings of the movement is population
control,,,,although that would not be the motive for those who feel choice is
the issue.
>
>: > : I have been on that march and I would question how you could stop
>: > : someone if they wanted to march.
>: >
>: > By calling the police, apparently.
>:
>: If you are not unruley how can the police stop you?
>
>If the march is organized by someone else and you're trying to take part
>in it, that may be all they need. *shrug* I dunno, wasn't there.
Neither was I, but I have marched with punkers and anybody who beleives in the
protection of life, and anyone is welcome to march beside me.
R.D.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: > Certain reporters may have an axe to grind. But they are not "the
: > media", any more than you or I are "the pro-life movment".
:
: My understanding was that we were discussing the direction of the main
: stream media.
We were, until you began talking about your personal experiences, which
are, shall we say, rather limited.
: > : Why ignore what the babies go through in the abortion procedure?
: >
: > Why exploit it for television's sake?
:
: How does showing the truth of what the main victims of abortion go
: through become exploiting this truth for television's sake?
The same way showing the truth of what *anybody* goes through -- the more
violent and sensational, the better -- becomes exploitation for
television's sake.
: The plight of the unborn is the centre piece of the argument, why ignore
: this in the media?
Because, in a way, it's irrelevant.
The issue is not whether things feel pain when we kill them (though we can
certainly argue for more humane ways of killing fetuses, the same way we
have relatively humane ways of killing pets). The issue is whether these
fetuses have a right to life comparable to the right to life held by
adults and other humans. The issue is essentially philosophical and no
amount of prenatal-snuff-movie footage can change that.
: > "Every time"? Impossible. There are more than two points of view on
: > the abortion issue. Way more. There's no way you could "balance"
: > them all. Especially in the typical six- or twelve-inch story. You
: > can only talk to those people who are immediately involved in whatever
: > story you're working on -- if a doctor is shot, for instance, you'd
: > want to talk to his family and to the people who witnessed the
: > shooting, plus you'd want to get a quick comment from both sides of
: > the abortion debate -- and that's it.
:
: When a baby is murdered wouldn't want to talk to his/her family? the
: father? grandparents?
Not if they didn't want to talk. *Some* reporters would want to get their
tears on the air and exploit that. I would prefer to respect their
privacy, instead of reducing everything to a quest for money shots.
: > : > : The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been
: > : > : properly represented in the media. I called the media . . .
: > : >
: > : > No you didn't. You called a newspaper, or you called a radio
: > : > station, or you called a TV station, but you did not call "the
: > : > media".
: > :
: > : Perhaps I called all of the above.
: >
: > Doubtful, unless you called *every* newspaper and *every* radio
: > station and *every* TV station in the world (or, to keep things easy
: > for you, every one of those in the country).
:
: Again I was under the impression we were discussing the main stream
: media. I of coarse do not have access to 'every' media outlet.
Then you shouldn't have said:
: > : Perhaps I called all of the above.
: You say that the term pro-choice is accurate within the frame work of
: the abortion issue. Yet you disqualify people from considering
: themselves pro-life because they are for a military and or the death
: penalty.
Not quite. I happen to agree with the CP Style Book on this one -- I
would allow activists to define their own identities, within reason, as
far as the journalism around this issue goes.
But on an academic level, yeah, sure, I do have qualms with the term
"pro-life", because it's too broad and the people who use it are usually
talking about abortion (and perhaps euthanasia, too).
: What does a convicted murderer getting what some may consider to be
: his/her just dues have to do with the slaughter of innocent unborn
: babies.
Killing is killing. Death is death.
: You can't have it both ways.
Your argument is confused here. It's precisely because "you can't have it
both ways" that you really can't demand a person's execution while calling
yourself "pro-life". In that instance, you're pro-death.
: Within the frame work of abortion people can be pro-life, even if they
: are for the death penalty as that would have nothing to do with the
: abortion issue.
But capital punishment *does* have something to do with the life issue.
It is because he values life that the Pope condemns both abortion and
capital punishment. Hence, for some people, "anti-abortion" is more
accurate and precise than "pro-life" is.
: > FWIW, a friend of mine who used to be pro-choice now considers herself
: > pro-life . . . However, she's not a Christian, and she still expresses
: > concerns that the pro-life position has been dominated by Christians
: > and, as a result, non-Christians who might agree with them on this one
: > issue are not encouraged to join the cause.
:
: I would suggest that her concerns that the pro-life position has been
: dominated by Christians is the basis for her discomfort with her
: feelings about being accepted into the cause.
In other words, "Just get over it," is that it? Well, fine, perhaps she
should, but have Christian pro-lifers given her any reason to?
: There is a group called Feminists for Life . . .
Yup, I'm aware of them.
: It is a credit to the Christian mind set that it has dominated the cause
: of the unborn babies.
Um ... it's a credit to us that we're so involved, but it's hardly a
credit to us that we've "dominated the cause".
: > Let's rephrase the question: What is the pro-life movement doing to
: > persuade people that it is not a religious crusade -- that it is about
: > protecting life, period, and not about waving some church's flag?
:
: Again it is to the credit of Christianity that it is considered to
: dominate the crusade for the rights of the unborn.
No it isn't. It says more for our power tactics -- and, ultimately, our
gracelessness -- if we "dominate" the pro-life side of the issue than it
does for any of our better qualities.
: The issue is protecting life, perhaps some are just uncomfortable with
: the way Christians go about trying to protect life i.e. praying etc.
Well, if atheists want to get involved in the pro-life cause, they're
hardly going to be encouraged by prayer vigils and things.
: I have not heard of anyone being asked to not participate because they
: were not a Christian.
Except for that gay pro-life group -- you *have* heard of them, at least
as of a few days ago.
: My sense is that it is the non Christians that are uncomfortable with
: the Christian world view. Perhaps they should look past the
: Christianity and focus on the issue, the respect for life.
If there is any truth whatsoever to that gay pro-life group's claims, it
would seem that some people *are* prepared to look past the religion --
but the religion wasn't prepared to look past itself.
RDyer14145
>
>: > Certain reporters may have an axe to grind. But they are not "the
>: > media", any more than you or I are "the pro-life movment".
>:
>: My understanding was that we were discussing the direction of the main
>: stream media.
>
>We were, until you began talking about your personal experiences, which
>are, shall we say, rather limited.
How would you know my entire involvment with the media? Should we say your
statement is rather over stated?
>
>: > : Why ignore what the babies go through in the abortion procedure?
>: >
>: > Why exploit it for television's sake?
>:
>: How does showing the truth of what the main victims of abortion go
>: through become exploiting this truth for television's sake?
>
>The same way showing the truth of what *anybody* goes through -- the more
>violent and sensational, the better -- becomes exploitation for
>television's sake.
I prefer to consider it at this point educational, and the media , at large,
prefers ignorance of the reality of the plight of the babies, at this time.
>
>: The plight of the unborn is the centre piece of the argument, why ignore
>: this in the media?
>
>Because, in a way, it's irrelevant.
>
>The issue is not whether things feel pain when we kill them (though we can
>certainly argue for more humane ways of killing fetuses, the same way we
>have relatively humane ways of killing pets). The issue is whether these
>fetuses have a right to life comparable to the right to life held by
>adults and other humans. The issue is essentially philosophical and no
>amount of prenatal-snuff-movie footage can change that.
Yet it is the footage of the concentration camps etc. that have appalled the
population at large , when educated of these atrocities, ( I guess they had no
media in Germany during the nazi reign) and fostered a moral outrage. The issue
there was essentially philosophical but the moral outrage came out of seeing
the reality of the suffering and injustice done to others. I will grant you
that hiding injustice under the 'philosophical' cloke is an effective and
essential tool to prevent the reality of the injustice from being held up for
public scrutiny. Sort of keep in the 'mind game' section and out of the heart
and soul section.
>
>: > "Every time"? Impossible. There are more than two points of view on
>: > the abortion issue. Way more. There's no way you could "balance"
>: > them all. Especially in the typical six- or twelve-inch story. You
>: > can only talk to those people who are immediately involved in whatever
>: > story you're working on -- if a doctor is shot, for instance, you'd
>: > want to talk to his family and to the people who witnessed the
>: > shooting, plus you'd want to get a quick comment from both sides of
>: > the abortion debate -- and that's it.
>:
>: When a baby is murdered wouldn't want to talk to his/her family? the
>: father? grandparents?
>
>Not if they didn't want to talk. *Some* reporters would want to get their
>tears on the air and exploit that. I would prefer to respect their
>privacy, instead of reducing everything to a quest for money shots.
Nice of you to make the *choice* for them as to whether they want to talk or
not. Perhaps there is a quest for the truth and whole story as oppossed to a
quest for 'money shots.'
>
>: > : > : The plight of the babies involved in an abortion has not been
>: > : > : properly represented in the media. I called the media . . .
>: > : >
>: > : > No you didn't. You called a newspaper, or you called a radio
>: > : > station, or you called a TV station, but you did not call "the
>: > : > media".
>: > :
>: > : Perhaps I called all of the above.
>: >
>: > Doubtful, unless you called *every* newspaper and *every* radio
>: > station and *every* TV station in the world (or, to keep things easy
>: > for you, every one of those in the country).
>:
>: Again I was under the impression we were discussing the main stream
>: media. I of coarse do not have access to 'every' media outlet.
>
>Then you shouldn't have said:
>
>: > : Perhaps I called all of the above.
In that I meant a every form of media you had listed. Again you do not know my
involvement with the media. Secondly perhaps I have given you too much credit
for common sense.
BTW I thought you said we were talking about N.A. how does every media outlet
in the world fit in. You do like to have it all ways don't you?
>
>: You say that the term pro-choice is accurate within the frame work of
>: the abortion issue. Yet you disqualify people from considering
>: themselves pro-life because they are for a military and or the death
>: penalty.
>
>Not quite. I happen to agree with the CP Style Book on this one -- I
>would allow activists to define their own identities, within reason, as
>far as the journalism around this issue goes.
>
>But on an academic level, yeah, sure, I do have qualms with the term
>"pro-life", because it's too broad and the people who use it are usually
>talking about abortion (and perhaps euthanasia, too).
>
But pro-choice is okey? Not too broad?
>: What does a convicted murderer getting what some may consider to be
>: his/her just dues have to do with the slaughter of innocent unborn
>: babies.
>
>Killing is killing. Death is death.
>
>: You can't have it both ways.
>
>Your argument is confused here. It's precisely because "you can't have it
>both ways" that you really can't demand a person's execution while calling
>yourself "pro-life". In that instance, you're pro-death.
>
Your argument goes in circles here. You appear to evade the core of the
argument which was a challenge to your position that pro-life is not a valid
description of most people involved in pro-lif for the reasons you mention
above yet pro-choice is valid when confined to the abortion argument. Again you
take the pro-life argument out side the frame work of the abortion issue to
disqualify it. Again I say fine, how many pro-choice people fight the my right
to choose to pay taxes or not, or drive through a red light etc. Choice is
choice. You can't have it both ways. It is either to be understood within the
abortion argument or both are to qualified outside that argument.
>: Within the frame work of abortion people can be pro-life, even if they
>: are for the death penalty as that would have nothing to do with the
>: abortion issue.
>
>But capital punishment *does* have something to do with the life issue.
>It is because he values life that the Pope condemns both abortion and
>capital punishment. Hence, for some people, "anti-abortion" is more
>accurate and precise than "pro-life" is.
We are not discussing the life issue at large any more than we are discusing
choice issues at large. We are discussing things within the framework of the
abortion issue. You can be just as pro-life within the abortion argument as you
can pro-choice. And be considered neither with respect ot other issues.
>
>: > FWIW, a friend of mine who used to be pro-choice now considers herself
>: > pro-life . . . However, she's not a Christian, and she still expresses
>: > concerns that the pro-life position has been dominated by Christians
>: > and, as a result, non-Christians who might agree with them on this one
>: > issue are not encouraged to join the cause.
>:
>: I would suggest that her concerns that the pro-life position has been
>: dominated by Christians is the basis for her discomfort with her
>: feelings about being accepted into the cause.
>
>In other words, "Just get over it," is that it? Well, fine, perhaps she
>should, but have Christian pro-lifers given her any reason to?
>
Those are not my words. I would prefer that she take an accurate look at the
root of her concerns and deal with them as she sees fit. But misinformation can
only lead to confusion even if it is my own internal misinformation.
>: It is a credit to the Christian mind set that it has dominated the cause
>: of the unborn babies.
>
>Um ... it's a credit to us that we're so involved, but it's hardly a
>credit to us that we've "dominated the cause".
It is by the involvment of Christians to the extent that they have been
involved that they are considered to dominate the cause, or as I would suggest
champion the cause. But there are other groups, were are their numbers etc. do
they really just spend their time worrying that the Christians are dominating
the scene? Why would they care? Just get out there and do your thing, take your
stand for the right to life.
>: > Let's rephrase the question: What is the pro-life movement doing to
>: > persuade people that it is not a religious crusade -- that it is about
>: > protecting life, period, and not about waving some church's flag?
>:
>: Again it is to the credit of Christianity that it is considered to
>: dominate the crusade for the rights of the unborn.
>
>No it isn't. It says more for our power tactics -- and, ultimately, our
>gracelessness -- if we "dominate" the pro-life side of the issue than it
>does for any of our better qualities.
I would suggest that it says more about the hearts of compassion and the quest
for justice that appears to be most evident in the Christian believer.
I have sat on the board of some pro-life organizations, I have never so much as
heard a word about 'other groups' etc. outside positive comments on what others
are doing. The focus has always been the plight of the unborn with it's
injustice etc. and the business at hand. No negative comments just trying to
move forward ourselves.
It is a credit to Christianity that although we live in a post-christian
culture, the cause of the unborn has motivated more Christians than anyone else
to selflessly take a stand. Of this I would not be, or be made to be, ashamed.
>
>: The issue is protecting life, perhaps some are just uncomfortable with
>: the way Christians go about trying to protect life i.e. praying etc.
>
>Well, if atheists want to get involved in the pro-life cause, they're
>hardly going to be encouraged by prayer vigils and things.
>
Exactly, so let the atheists take a stand as they see most fitting. But don't
tell the Christian to stop praying because I, the atheist, do not feel
comfortable with prayer. Appreciate each other for the stand taken for life and
tolerate each other on/for the same common ground.
>: I have not heard of anyone being asked to not participate because they
>: were not a Christian.
>
>Except for that gay pro-life group -- you *have* heard of them, at least
>as of a few days ago.
You have presented this scenario but with sketchy details. I do not *know* of
anyone being asked to not participate in the pro-life cause because they were
not Christian.
>
>: My sense is that it is the non Christians that are uncomfortable with
>: the Christian world view. Perhaps they should look past the
>: Christianity and focus on the issue, the respect for life.
>
>If there is any truth whatsoever to that gay pro-life group's claims, it
>would seem that some people *are* prepared to look past the religion --
>but the religion wasn't prepared to look past itself.
>
I still question how it is possible to prevent someone from participating in a
march. Perhaps the gay pro-life group wanted a higher profile than the rest of
us marchers and feel slated, I don't know, I wasn't there. Why don't they
organize their own march? I'll come and sing at it.
R.D.
Jason Steiner
> RDyer14145 (rdyer...@aol.com) wrote:
> >
> > The plight of the unborn is the centre piece of the argument, why
> > ignore this in the media?
>
> Because, in a way, it's irrelevant.
>
> The issue is not whether things feel pain when we kill them (though
> we can certainly argue for more humane ways of killing fetuses, the
> same way we have relatively humane ways of killing pets). The
> issue is whether these fetuses have a right to life comparable to
> the right to life held by adults and other humans. The issue is
> essentially philosophical and no amount of prenatal-snuff-movie
> footage can change that.
Besides, quite a few Christians don't even believe their own
propaganda when it comes to fetuses and pain. Or even infants
and pain.
Circumcision, anyone?
jason
r.m.c's first resident atheist
--
"Any time of the day is a good time for pie." - Fabienne, Pulp Fiction
ja...@gaydeceiver.com http://www.gaydeceiver.com
Jason Steiner
> >
> >Because, in a way, it's irrelevant.
> >
> >The issue is not whether things feel pain when we kill them
> >(though we can certainly argue for more humane ways of killing
> >fetuses, the same way we have relatively humane ways of killing
> >pets). The issue is whether these fetuses have a right to life
> >comparable to the right to life held by adults and other humans.
> >The issue is essentially philosophical and no amount of prenatal-
> >snuff-movie footage can change that.
>
> Yet it is the footage of the concentration camps etc. that have
> appalled the population at large , when educated of these
> atrocities, ( I guess they had no media in Germany during the nazi
> reign) and fostered a moral outrage. The issue there was
> essentially philosophical but the moral outrage came out of seeing
> the reality of the suffering and injustice done to others. I will
> grant you that hiding injustice under the 'philosophical' cloke is
> an effective and essential tool to prevent the reality of the
> injustice from being held up for public scrutiny. Sort of keep in
> the 'mind game' section and out of the heart and soul section.
I absolutely agree, and look forward to your help with the campaign
to put more full-color images of bloody infant penises on the front
pages of our nation's newspapers. We must raise public awareness of
the suffering and injustice being visited upon defenseless children
in the name of hygene and religious tradition.
snail
>snail wrote:
>> You've missed the point. When Hitler gets mentioned in a discussion
>> it usually means said discussion is degenerating into little more
>> than a flamewar. Which is what is happening here. eg your 'juvenile
>Gotta step in here, so even if it's relevant, Hitler can't be mentioned?
That's right. As far as usenet is concerned. I'm not talking
real life here...but then I never am :-)
> Granted, most people throw that name around without any basis, just to
>intimidate when out of ideas (or rhetoric); but he was one of the most infamous
>figures of this century.
Yep, it's too easy to throw in Hitler references in order to beef
up an argument. Not to mention that Hitler and the nazis is a very
emotionally charged issue; it's bad enough throwing it into an
argument in real life where people can sense the mood, never mind
on usenet where it's much harder. Combine that with a topic like
abortion which is almost as sensitive and is responsible for its
own share of flamewars, and you have a diabolical mix.
Certainly RDyer14145's comments weren't at the extreme end of the
scale, but compare the way RDyer14145 reacted to my bringing up
Godwin's Law, to (I think it was Don Smith) last year. Don responded
in good humour (not to mention he referenced Hitler quite carefully)
and a solid, *relaxed* conversation continued, whilst RDyer14145
chose to insult instead and his conversation with Peter strikes me
as being fairly tense. Sure, we discuss some serious issues on rmc,
but there's no reason we shouldn't keep it friendly.
> Is the name over-used? Yes; Is it still relevant, Yes!
I know what you'res saying, but this is usenet. Not real life,
not downtown america, but a global discussion area.
>Mike "Music please!!!!"
:) Just had a listen to the new _Petrol Money_ tonight and was
quite impressed. Still fairly hardcore, but with a funky groove
running through it.
[sorry for the late followup, but the news server crashed again on
the weekend - it's time I think, to look for a new ISP]
snail
>Circumcision, anyone?
Pass. Once was enough. Not that I remember. Not that I want to remember.
RDyer14145
>Snapp <sn...@worldweb.netSKI> wrote:
>>snail wrote:
>>> You've missed the point. When Hitler gets mentioned in a discussion
>>> it usually means said discussion is degenerating into little more
>>> than a flamewar. Which is what is happening here. eg your 'juvenile
>
>>Gotta step in here, so even if it's relevant, Hitler can't be mentioned?
>
>That's right. As far as usenet is concerned. I'm not talking
>real life here...but then I never am :-)
>
>> Granted, most people throw that name around without any basis, just to
>>intimidate when out of ideas (or rhetoric); but he was one of the most
>infamous
>>figures of this century.
He also, according to history, had buildings blown up and then blamed Jewish
people so as to insight 'dislike' toward Jewish people.
A Canadian Security Intelligence Agent/Informant suggested the same thing
happened with the bombing of an abortion clinic in Canada, and he went on to
say that it was done so that the then government could come down on the
pro-life people/movement etc. Sound familiar? The point being made was,,,why
wouldn't the media jump all over this story and expose the truth,
particularly, as in hindsight (at least in most historical accounts) such
action has been condemned.
Just thought I would make sure things stayed in context.
>
>Certainly RDyer14145's comments weren't at the extreme end of the
>scale, but compare the way RDyer14145 reacted to my bringing up
>Godwin's Law, to (I think it was Don Smith) last year. Don responded
>in good humour (not to mention he referenced Hitler quite carefully)
>and a solid, *relaxed* conversation continued, whilst RDyer14145
>chose to insult instead and his conversation with Peter strikes me
>as being fairly tense. Sure, we discuss some serious issues on rmc,
>but there's no reason we shouldn't keep it friendly.
>
I find nothing humorous about the slaughter of unborn babies, and I find
nothing humorous about the actions of Hitler.
I also would be interested in how your jumping all over the word Hitler added
to the discussion and prompted a 'solid *relaxed* conversation'. Was it not you
who suggested the conversation was over because of the use of Hitler's name?
Yet you carry on.
I suggested that your sensational reaction to the name Hitler was a juvenile
knee-jerk *reaction*, and I see no reason to suggest otherwise.
I personally have enjoyed the discussion with Peter and respect the intelligent
manner with which he has presented most of his argument. But understand, the
slaughter of these little ones is as serious a topic as there is, as the
consequences to the babies is very serious indeed.
N.A. is in the middle of a holocaust, people of conscience want to take a
serious hard look at that.
R.D.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: > : My understanding was that we were discussing the direction of the
: > : main stream media.
: >
: > We were, until you began talking about your personal experiences,
: > which are, shall we say, rather limited.
:
: How would you know my entire involvment with the media?
Well, *I'm* a member of the media, and you haven't contacted *me*! :)
: > The issue is not whether things feel pain when we kill them (though we
: > can certainly argue for more humane ways of killing fetuses, the same
: > way we have relatively humane ways of killing pets). The issue is
: > whether these fetuses have a right to life comparable to the right to
: > life held by adults and other humans. The issue is essentially
: > philosophical and no amount of prenatal-snuff-movie footage can change
: > that.
:
: Yet it is the footage of the concentration camps etc. that have appalled
: the population at large, when educated of these atrocities . . .
For those who were philosophically predisposed to regard all adult humans
as having equal worth, yes. To this day, there are people who *don't*
regard adult Jews as having equal worth with other adult humans; those
people are not philosophically predisposed to find the footage appalling.
Personally, I'm inclined to be appalled by footage of dead fetuses left in
a dumpster somewhere. They are human enough for *me* (and, I suspect,
most people). But you have to treat such things sensitively;
anti-abortionists who shove dead fetuses under people's noses already have
a bad rep as shockmeisters and exploitationists.
: > : When a baby is murdered wouldn't want to talk to his/her family? the
: > : father? grandparents?
: >
: > Not if they didn't want to talk. *Some* reporters would want to get
: > their tears on the air and exploit that. I would prefer to respect
: > their privacy, instead of reducing everything to a quest for money
: > shots.
:
: Nice of you to make the *choice* for them as to whether they want to
: talk or not. Perhaps there is a quest for the truth and whole story as
: oppossed to a quest for 'money shots.'
Are you suggesting that reporters should pry into the private lives of
entire families? Some already do. We call that tabloidism.
: > . . . Hence, for some people, "anti-abortion" is more accurate and
: > precise than "pro-life" is.
:
: We are not discussing the life issue at large . . .
Well, that may be just the problem.
: . . . any more than we are discusing choice issues at large.
*We* might not be, but some people do.
: > : I have not heard of anyone being asked to not participate because
: > : they were not a Christian.
: >
: > Except for that gay pro-life group -- you *have* heard of them, at
: > least as of a few days ago.
:
: You have presented this scenario but with sketchy details.
You mean, sketchy details like names and stuff? Would you like a phone
number? Either way, you've heard of it.
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
RDyer14145
>RDyer14145 (rdyer...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: > : My understanding was that we were discussing the direction of the
>: > : main stream media.
>: >
>: > We were, until you began talking about your personal experiences,
>: > which are, shall we say, rather limited.
>:
>: How would you know my entire involvment with the media?
>
>Well, *I'm* a member of the media, and you haven't contacted *me*! :)
I have now. :)
>
>: > The issue is not whether things feel pain when we kill them (though we
>: > can certainly argue for more humane ways of killing fetuses, the same
>: > way we have relatively humane ways of killing pets). The issue is
>: > whether these fetuses have a right to life comparable to the right to
>: > life held by adults and other humans. The issue is essentially
>: > philosophical and no amount of prenatal-snuff-movie footage can change
>: > that.
>:
>: Yet it is the footage of the concentration camps etc. that have appalled
>: the population at large, when educated of these atrocities . . .
>
>For those who were philosophically predisposed to regard all adult humans
>as having equal worth, yes. To this day, there are people who *don't*
>regard adult Jews as having equal worth with other adult humans; those
>people are not philosophically predisposed to find the footage appalling.
>
>Personally, I'm inclined to be appalled by footage of dead fetuses left in
>a dumpster somewhere. They are human enough for *me* (and, I suspect,
>most people). But you have to treat such things sensitively;
>anti-abortionists who shove dead fetuses under people's noses already have
>a bad rep as shockmeisters and exploitationists.
I guess I was counting on the media to be sensitive and demonstrate respect for
these little ones left in a dumpster etc.
Perhaps the problem is that the truth of abortion is shocking.
The thing I most appreciated about Melody Greens video, 'Baby Choice' was the
respect and dignity she showed for the babies and her overall lack of
sensationalism.
I have seen other films that lacked that respect.
The point we were discussing is the media's lack of presenting the babies
perspective of the abortion issue.
I once asked several reporters from major newspapers, during an interview, (
I'm surprised you were not present :) ), when it was that the atrocities of
Germany during the 2nd WW (being careful here not to say *the word*) with
regard to concentration camps etc., was exposed for people to see and
understand. We agreed it was after the Allies intervened. My question was
"what's the matter no journalists in Germany?"
And again I say the plight of the victims of abortion has not been given a fair
shake in the media,,,at large that is.
Good point on the philosophically predisposed comment. I would suggest that
some people are neutral as they have never been in a postion to need to develop
a perspective, and as well the facts have been absent to develop a binding
perspective.
I have done presentations were the group was 90% 'por-choice' and when I left
they were 90% pro-life,,,many stating that no one had ever shown them the
facts. Perhaps these people have a philosophical predispostion to having regard
for all of human life, big or small, but ignorance had lead them to form a
misguided perspective, until further evidence/facts were presented to them.
BTW I do not in these encounters tell anyone what to think, I consider my job
to present the truth and they can then make up their own minds.
>
>: > : When a baby is murdered wouldn't want to talk to his/her family? the
>: > : father? grandparents?
>: >
>: > Not if they didn't want to talk. *Some* reporters would want to get
>: > their tears on the air and exploit that. I would prefer to respect
>: > their privacy, instead of reducing everything to a quest for money
>: > shots.
>:
>: Nice of you to make the *choice* for them as to whether they want to
>: talk or not. Perhaps there is a quest for the truth and whole story as
>: oppossed to a quest for 'money shots.'
>
>Are you suggesting that reporters should pry into the private lives of
>entire families? Some already do. We call that tabloidism.
How about change 'pry' to inquire, perhaps members of the family want to say
something, i.e. the fathers of the babies being aborted. If not leave them
alone.
Are you suggesting that all media with the exception of tabloids, distance
themselves from entire families, ask no one any questions etc. Seems to me
mainstream media often has the opinion of other family members i.e. murder
trials etc. Is that prying? or journalism?
>
>: > . . . Hence, for some people, "anti-abortion" is more accurate and
>: > precise than "pro-life" is.
>:
>: We are not discussing the life issue at large . . .
>
>Well, that may be just the problem.
That is another discusion.
>
>: . . . any more than we are discusing choice issues at large.
>
>*We* might not be, but some people do.
>
>: > : I have not heard of anyone being asked to not participate because
>: > : they were not a Christian.
>: >
>: > Except for that gay pro-life group -- you *have* heard of them, at
>: > least as of a few days ago.
>:
>: You have presented this scenario but with sketchy details.
>
>You mean, sketchy details like names and stuff? Would you like a phone
>number? Either way, you've heard of it.
Sketchy in that you were not there and are presenting just that someone told
you they or their group was told not to participate,,,but have provided no
details as to who told them, why, etc.,,, did you interview the organizers to
see if this complaint had merit, or would that be too intrusive :) (not meant
to slight you, just having fun)
BTW you have influenced to reread Rich Christains in an Age of Hunger by
Ronald Sider.
R.D.
Peter Thomas Chattaway
: > Are you suggesting that reporters should pry into the private lives of
: > entire families? Some already do. We call that tabloidism.
:
: How about change 'pry' to inquire . . .
As in _National Inquirer_? (Just kidding. :) )
: . . . perhaps members of the family want to say something, i.e. the
: fathers of the babies being aborted. If not leave them alone.
Fair nuff.
: Are you suggesting that all media with the exception of tabloids,
: distance themselves from entire families, ask no one any questions etc.
No, I think most media will at least ask an introductory question. But if
the family declines to comment and the reporters keep pushing for a
comment ... well, it depends on how hard they push.
: > : > Except for that gay pro-life group -- you *have* heard of them, at
: > : > least as of a few days ago.
: > :
: > : You have presented this scenario but with sketchy details.
: >
: > You mean, sketchy details like names and stuff? Would you like a
: > phone number? Either way, you've heard of it.
:
: Sketchy in that you were not there and are presenting just that someone
: told you they or their group was told not to participate,,,but have
: provided no details as to who told them, why, etc.,,, did you interview
: the organizers to see if this complaint had merit, or would that be too
: intrusive :) (not meant to slight you, just having fun)
Well, in fun, then ... :) IIRC, I just typed out what a local gay paper
had to say about that event. They gave the names of the pro-life group
and of the guy who runs it, both of which I passed on. They also gave a
phone number for that group, but I don't think I passed *that* on. And
no, I wasn't about to make a long-distance call just for this chitchat. :)
: BTW you have influenced to reread Rich Christains in an Age of Hunger
: by Ronald Sider.
I've never read that, actually, though I hear it's good. Are you reading
the original version or the anniversary edition which came out a couple
years ago?
--
--- Peter T. Chattaway ------------------------ pet...@interchg.ubc.ca ---
clive
no thanks.
> Pass. Once was enough.
wouldn't it be kinda impossible to have it done twice? :)
> Not that I remember. Not that I want to remember.
i dont even want to have to think about it..
> snail
clive