I just don't understand people sometimes.

MM, I drew the comparison because it was apt. I don't condemn all pro-lifers. I do see of lot of rage in many that I've spoken to and they scare the fuck out of me.

The point remains, however, that while you are bringing something up from 10-years-ago, how about from yesterday? In this age of information, you would think that a statement could be released a lot quicker.

And, just as with Chuck saying that he is against suicide bombings and 9/11...

There is no vocal condemnation coming out of anti-choice groups. Where is it? Where is the press conference from whatever anti-choice group in Dallas? Were they unavailable for the story? Were they even asked? Where is their letter to the editor?

 

The story is still fairly new. It's not like the pro-life movement's powers that be have been watching this unfold for a week without comment.

Considering that there was no "Texas Right to Life officials were unavailable for comment" in the story, I'd say "were they even asked?" might be the most pertinent question you pose.

And maybe give it a day or two before we jump on the lack of letters to the editor?

 

Pastor -- Why not call them Pro-Life groups? You'd have far more credibility and you'd be taken more seriously if you didn't use that petty pejorative "anti" which is a clever trick of the left. Everyone that disagrees with them is anti-, that way they can put themself up on a pedestal

 

MM, it is a day. If you are abhored by such actions, you respond. This isn't complex.

Texans for Life has yet to post a statement.

Texas Right to Life has yet to post a statement. Hell, the TRtL's had a statement the same day as the Supreme Court upheld the abortion ban. Do they now need more time?

Simply put: They aren't pro-Life. They don't like abortions, but life they give fuck all about.

Also, you talking about "credibility" is quite a laugh. "A clever trick of the left" from a guy claiming to be of no party.

 

It took a bit of searching, but I finally found something...
LifeNews.com

Oh yes, in a "news" story let's call the place "an abortion business". Wonderful.

I also don't see condemnation from Mr. Peace, Joe Pojman.

 

And they are batshit crazy for thinking so, and for acting on it in such a way.
As for the "we deplore" faction, ask yourself what you'd be saying if the government bum-rushed a mosque if a Muslim dropped off a bomb somewhere, and the imam argued that they "deplored" such things. These anti-reproductive choice people are terrorists, or the word has no meaning.

 

I hate responding to your posts, because I always forget to fix the quote function and the last part of my comment comes out Pastor Blue, and I don't need the copyright infringement case.

First, I'd at LEAST give them until the end of the day. If it were me, I'd probably jump out of the gates with something condeming it pretty quickly. Surely you're not suggesting that the groups mentioned implicitly approve of yesterday's attempt, are you?

As for the Supreme Court ruling, they knew something like that was coming, so they probably had a couple of evergreen releases at the ready -- one approving, one condeming. It might say something about them if they had a "clinic bombing condemnation" evergreen.

So if you want to be called "pro-life" you have to jump through various hoops and believe A, B and C. But to be "pro-choice," there's no requirement to be for school vouchers or less government regulation of businesses or other issues that ostensibly can be linked to the concept of choice?

And "anti-choice" is picking for a fight. Have I called abortion rights' advocates baby killers on this board? Ever?

 

What in hell would you want a pro-life website to call an abortion clinic? Candyland? Seriously, they're an advocacy site, you don't go there unless you're a member of the choir.

And again, maybe give a little time to the other two people before you jump down their throat for not being opposed enough? Maybe they have sucky PR.

 

Hell, I hate abortion. But, I'm for the choice. See, that is why "baby killer" doesn't work.

Pro-lifers aren't "pro" life. They are anti-choice. Once that baby is born pro-lifers don't care what occurs or what happens. (I may add that someone placing a bomb at a building isn't exactly pro-life.)

Now, maybe it could take until the end of the day. Looking at the Texas Alliance for Life page, it doesn't seem like they update it all too often. So, I'll leave that door open. Maybe Mr. Peaceful will condemn the bombing attempt later.

You may be right about speaking to the choir, but if a statement is released with the hed "Pro-Life Group Responds", I would expect some condemnation.

 

Pastor, well put.

 

Yes, bombs in duffel bags is really bad PR.

 

Okay, but if you think that abortion ends a human life, then it stands to reason that people advocating that would be pro-killing. I don't subscribe to that line of thinking, primarily because it doesn't do a damn bit of good, but "anti-choice" is pretty offensive too.

To be "anti-choice" implies that the only (or main) reason people are opposed to abortion is to fuck around with women. That's grossly unfair. It sounds nice to the choir, but it's not based in fact. There's a reason the National Right to Life Handbook (I actually have a copy of it somewhere at my mom's house) has a fetus in utero on its cover, and not a barefoot woman chained to a stove.

There was, though maybe not as strong as you'd prefer. They did call it a "wrongheaded idea". It might have been nice for them to go out and say "we think this attempted bombing of an abortion clinic/business/whatever is abhorrant and we are greatly grieved that someone waving the pro-life banner would do this." Or maybe they think that much should be obvious. Who knows? I'd be willing to bet "bad PR strategy" or "taking too long to craft a statement" more than "they're cheering this like Dylan showed up at their coffeehouse to do a set"