DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:[EDIT] - Even one of Thorne's statements conflicts itself:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Rights are not brought into existence by law as if from nowhere. Rights that are actually rights are first recognized and then protected by law. Rights exist before the law protects them, and in spite of laws which fail to protect them. Rights are derived from truths of our existence as they are perceived. These truths do not cease to be wherever someone or some people fail(s) to perceive them.

Yes they are and truths can change with time. Rights are solely the fabrication of ideas and truths from the human mind. They don't exist as part of natural law. Laws and codes of conduct are then created to enforce or take away those rights. Those same rights can be just as easily taken away when someone or even society itself decides new truths supersede older already established truths. There are no absolute truths, only ideas, opinions, observations and supositions.

I get it Lothar. Being a woman, I now appreciate having the right to vote, or the ability to own my own property separate from that of my husband and to have many more rights as a human being that women didn't have in the past. In the past in this country, women WERE essentially the property of the husband. In some countries today, women ARE the property of their husbands. But what's to stop a future group of politicians or lawmakers from taking those relatively new rights of mine from being taken away all over again?

Maybe the answer really is, as I think was stated earlier in this thread -- an artificial womb.

were we not so good at cognitive dissonance and ignoring facts.

Not a character flaw per se, but more along the lines of survival mechanism. IIRC, there was a study done about this, and it turns out even in the face of correcting evidence, people held onto their beliefs much more tightly.

We're stupid like that.

---------

Measure of a man. one of my favourite TNG episodes. It's up there with "The Drumhead".

TunnelCat wrote:There are no absolute truths, only ideas, opinions, observations and supositions.

In accepting this you undermine the foundation of American constitution and bill of rights--human rights in general would only be a product of might/majority makes right. No absolute truth is an intellectually shallow ideology. No absolute truth must mean no absolutes period--No facts, because truths is derived from association of facts. It's shortsighted.

All concepts are a construct of the human mind. But there are still things that exist outside of being conceptual, and I believe this is the problem people are having here.

There are many different kinds of rights…some conceptual and some not.

Rights invented by humans:

Civil rights
Legal rights
Freedoms and Liberties (some)
Entitlements
Etc.

Rights derived from nature:

Natural rights
Human rights

Rights derived from nature still have to be conceptualized by humans, because that is how we perceive and understand the universe, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Natural rights are derived from being part of nature, can you look me in the eye and tell me you don’t have the right to breathe, with a straight face? Yes, it is in fact the “need” to breathe, and that is the basis for the “right” to breathe, the two are one in the same, the former is granted by nature, and the latter is how we perceive that need.

Based on the above reasoning, as I have stated before…humans only have the right to kill, when they have the need to kill…which means you have no inherent “right” to kill, which implies something has the right to live, if there is no need to kill it.

You also need to understand that having the right to live doesn’t insure that you “will” live. (in reference to the ant question) Rights are not absolutes, they don’t have magic powers.

Anyway, those are my personal beliefs, I do not try to impose any of them on anybody else, if you wish to believe you do not have any inherent rights, that’s your right. I just wanted to explain the context I was using the term in.

tunnelcat wrote:I now appreciate having the right to vote, or the ability to own my own property separate from that of my husband and to have many more rights as a human being that women didn't have in the past.... what's to stop a future group of politicians or lawmakers from taking those relatively new rights of mine from being taken away all over again?

In this country, our government was designed with checks and balances -- the Constitution, judiciary, executives, legislators, and ultimately, ordinary people with the right to keep and bear arms and rise up against tyranny.

Even the strongest of us, but especially the most vulnerable, are dependent on others to secure their human rights. That's why people on this side of the issue are so adamant about abortion -- once we understand that we're dealing with tiny, vulnerable human beings with all the aspects of humanity that matter (some in small measure, but all present) we can't just stand back and ignore the fact that they have no legal protection and are actively killed in circumstances that in no way warrant it. That's why rhetoric like "my body, my choice" rings so hollow -- that's a good argument for legalizing weed, but not for killing a totally innocent human.

Spidey wrote:... if you wish to believe you do not have any inherent rights, that’s your right.

...or is it...

Lothar wrote:What I'm suggesting isn't that we might make some discovery that adjusts the timeline by a small amount. Rather, what I'm suggesting is that we might make a philosophical leap -- for those who are presently in full support of abortions up until the moment of birth, perhaps having some insight into human rights that makes them decide that certain types of active brain function demonstrate humanity. And suddenly realizing that science has known, for decades, of that type of brain activity taking place for the entire last 20 weeks of pregnancy.

I'm also not comfortable with elective abortions all the way until the moment of birth (my guess is that most pro-choice aren't either, but I don't know for sure).

Lothar wrote:For the last half of pregnancy, it's not hard to make the case that you're dealing with a thinking, feeling, active human being. It's also not hard to make the case, as Ferno does, that it's still dependent on the mother. Given that philosophical disagreement, and the possibility that we might change our minds either individually or as a whole society, I think it's far better to err on the side of "protect the thinking, feeling, active human being" than on the side of "let the mother get rid of a dependent blob of tissue". And I don't think that's a matter of individual choice; we wouldn't dream of doing that with any other form of human rights. Even if we're not sure when gingers get their souls, we would never be like "it's your individual choice as to whether to kill possibly-soulless gingers"; we assume they all deserve equal protection under the law.

Although the moral cost of us changing our minds too late might be high, we also have to weight it with the probability of us actually doing that, which might be low. I don't know how to begin quantifying something like that though.

Would you also apply this reasoning to other moral issues like the death penalty? The death penalty seems to qualify not just because we might change our mind about the practice in general (if current momentum is any indication, it seems like we will) but also because even if the death penalty is moral there is a risk of accidentally executing the wrong person. We might also change the way we perceive animals and their rights in future. In light of their cognition and their social behavior, we might some day look back at how we treat animals now as inhumane. Should we stop eating meat?

Personally I err on the side of steak.

Jeff250 wrote:I'm also not comfortable with elective abortions all the way until the moment of birth (my guess is that most pro-choice aren't either, but I don't know for sure).

I think most pro-choice people aren't. 43 states actually have some late-term restrictions. Most pro-choice organizations, in my experience, speak as though such restrictions are massively oppressive.

Would you also apply this reasoning to other moral issues like the death penalty? ... animals and their rights?

When it comes to the death penalty, "common humanity" is obvious. That's not a front on which it's reasonable to expect to change our minds. Instead, we ask the question of when it's acceptable to take another human life -- and while our society has decided on self-defense, "justified" war (can of worms alert), and the death penalty, I think it's reasonable to expect that we as a society might change our minds in fairly significant ways on the last two, and we certainly have our fair share of both anti-war protests and anti-death-penalty arguments. So yes, I'd use "err on the side of caution" as an argument there, but it applies in a different way.

For animals, "common humanity" is a harder argument to make. The only of the characteristics I described above that they definitely qualify for is "ability to live independently". They obviously don't have human DNA. Do they have the capacity to reason or feel emotion? Some of the more advanced species (dolphins, many primates) appear to have those in a rudimentary form -- and we don't eat dolphins or primates, at least not in this country, and AFAIK we have some laws protecting them. Among the main US "food animal" categories (cattle, poultry, fish) there are possible, tiny indicators of emotion, which I interpret as being far below what even a mid-pregnancy fetus seems to experience. My experience of cows is that they're far more mindless (like, orders of magnitude) than even the most preemie babies I've ever interacted with. They do have the clear ability to feel pain (which is why we have laws against animal cruelty.) But I would place it as considerably less likely that we'd discover/philosophize that cows have emotion than that we'd draw the same conclusion about a 20-week human fetus. So the same reasoning seems to me much less compelling, though admittedly at least worth thinking through carefully.

I also think this is the one place where the "potential" argument has real strength. If cows and chickens grew into a clearly sentient form at some higher age, showing non-trivial signs of reason and emotion, I think I'd be much more inclined to give credence to the minor indicators of emotion prior to that stage. If old cows showed the emotional complexity of even dogs, I think our society would rapidly shift away from them as a food source. But at present, "err on the side of caution" seems like enough of an argument to get to laws against animal cruelty, not all the way to not eating meat.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

TunnelCat wrote:There are no absolute truths, only ideas, opinions, observations and supositions.

In accepting this you undermine the foundation of American constitution and bill of rights--human rights in general would only be a product of might/majority makes right. No absolute truth is an intellectually shallow ideology. No absolute truth must mean no absolutes period--No facts, because truths is derived from association of facts. It's shortsighted.

No, it doesn't. When I say there are no absolute truths, I'm referring to the universe in a metaphysical way. Our very existance in this universe may only be an illusion for all I know. Sorry, I've moved a little too far outside the box.

As to human truths, they can be absolute because we think and believe they are absolute. We created them with our minds and intelligence, are comfortable with them and live our lives by them. If we're comfortable with that, then things will work for everyone. The only problems that crop up is when madmen like Stalin, Hitler or evil regimes the Khmer Rouge say their truths and ways are better than everyone esle's truths, then we have to fight to prove our truths are the best. But then, you're getting into the definitions of good and evil.

Lothar wrote:For animals, "common humanity" is a harder argument to make. The only of the characteristics I described above that they definitely qualify for is "ability to live independently". They obviously don't have human DNA.

I don't like "common humanity" because it's unfairly biased toward humans. Why would DNA be an important factor?

Lothar wrote:Do they have the capacity to reason or feel emotion? Some of the more advanced species (dolphins, many primates) appear to have those in a rudimentary form -- and we don't eat dolphins or primates, at least not in this country, and AFAIK we have some laws protecting them. Among the main US "food animal" categories (cattle, poultry, fish) there are possible, tiny indicators of emotion, which I interpret as being far below what even a mid-pregnancy fetus seems to experience. My experience of cows is that they're far more mindless (like, orders of magnitude) than even the most preemie babies I've ever interacted with. They do have the clear ability to feel pain (which is why we have laws against animal cruelty.) But I would place it as considerably less likely that we'd discover/philosophize that cows have emotion than that we'd draw the same conclusion about a 20-week human fetus. So the same reasoning seems to me much less compelling, though admittedly at least worth thinking through carefully.

Of course we would think that infants are more emotional, because we evolved to be able to adeptly pick up on their emotions. Cows, there was no pressure, and maybe cows don't think we express emotions either. You mention later that dogs show more emotional complexity than cows, but I suspect it is the same bias at work--dogs evolved to read our emotions and vice versa, and so we perceive them to be more emotional.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't like "common humanity" because it's unfairly biased toward humans

A fair point. It has been the common reference point when it comes to "human rights" (heh) in a lot of the rhetoric, but you'll notice I linked to ST:TNG's "The Measure of a Man", which was all about an android. I point out human DNA largely because of rhetoric like "parasite" and "virus" that gets passed around, as a key difference between an unborn human and an invasive outsider.

Zip250 wrote:Of course we would think that infants are more emotional, because we evolved to be able to adeptly pick up on their emotions..... dogs evolved to read our emotions

Dolphins didn't. Yet we think they're quite emotional. There are ways to read emotions other than facial cues or body language, like electrodes reading brain activity in situations that should provoke certain types of emotion, or studying their brain structure. Experiments in cows and even mice have shown some emotions like fear, but not nearly the depth of emotions that are obvious in dogs, dolphins, and infants (which can also be detected using the same methods.)

Lothar wrote:Dolphins didn't. Yet we think they're quite emotional. There are ways to read emotions other than facial cues or body language, like electrodes reading brain activity in situations that should provoke certain types of emotion, or studying their brain structure. Experiments in cows and even mice have shown some emotions like fear, but not nearly the depth of emotions that are obvious in dogs, dolphins, and infants (which can also be detected using the same methods.)

Well, it doesn't help that we live in 2 vastly different ecosystems, water verses air, which makes it almost impossible to understand or learn each others emotions. They have been observed "mourning" their dead on many occasions, so perhaps they do have more emotional response than we think. A creature that doesn't have facial expressions because of anatomy doesn't necessarily render it incapable of emotion.

I think you read the opposite of what I said.

I said dolphins DO have a lot of emotions, while cows DO NOT. In spite of the vast ecosystem differences, we still are able to identify dolphins as highly emotional creatures. The fact that we can't identify the same in cows (which we've been around for much longer) is suggestive, though not proof, that the "characteristics of common humanity" argument does not apply to cows, though it might apply to some degree to dolphins, dogs, and very small humans.

lotta projection going on in this thread,now.

callmeslick wrote:lotta projection going on in this thread,now.

What's the point of even having a discussion, other than to engage with ideas, to challenge and be challenged?

no issue with that, but the projection of feelings, emotions and lack of same onto animals that are not human(hence, not working on the same value system that yields emotion and feelings as we know it) is just rather amusing. Especially, in light of the original topic. Carry on though. I'm reading, not willing to jump in a flog this horse any further, and really unwilling to project human values and feelings upon non-human species.

callmeslick wrote:the projection of feelings, emotions and lack of same onto animals that are not human(hence, not working on the same value system that yields emotion and feelings as we know it) is just rather amusing

We're different from animals in a lot of ways, but some of them do have fairly advanced brains, and that gives us a common enough baseline to detect responses that are recognizably "emotion" in dolphins and many primates, and "something kind of emotion-like" in lesser creatures. For example, with cows, mice, and similarly less-intelligent mammals, there's increased activity in certain parts of the brain when two of them are receiving pain stimuli compared to just one, suggesting something like a proto-empathy, but it's hard to characterize it as a real emotion.

Remember what triggered this tangent -- a discussion of why we don't think "human rights" belong only to white landowning males. Because women, non-whites, and children share the key commonalities that we recognize as making someone a "real person" deserving of what we currently call human rights. How far does that extend? I think those commonalities are clearly present in humans some time before birth, present in a much lesser degree in some of the most advanced animals, and mostly absent once you get down to animals we normally eat. So applying the reasoning that we should err on the side of caution to protect those who might reasonably share those commonalities, we should definitely protect the unborn at least in the last half of pregnancy, and maaaaybe should protect dolphins and primates, and there's no reason whatsoever to extend that protection down to cows (other than the most basic "animal cruelty" laws, since they clearly do feel pain.)

Lothar wrote:Dolphins didn't. Yet we think they're quite emotional. There are ways to read emotions other than facial cues or body language, like electrodes reading brain activity in situations that should provoke certain types of emotion, or studying their brain structure. Experiments in cows and even mice have shown some emotions like fear, but not nearly the depth of emotions that are obvious in dogs, dolphins, and infants (which can also be detected using the same methods.)

Can you link to such a study that demonstrates that cows have less emotional depth than dogs using (e.g.) brain activity?

In trying to find one, I actually came across this which speaks to dogs versus humans:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ca ... experience

It suggests that dogs experience emotions at roughly a human 2.5 year old level of sophistication.

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:Dolphins didn't. Yet we think they're quite emotional. There are ways to read emotions other than facial cues or body language, like electrodes reading brain activity in situations that should provoke certain types of emotion, or studying their brain structure. Experiments in cows and even mice have shown some emotions like fear, but not nearly the depth of emotions that are obvious in dogs, dolphins, and infants (which can also be detected using the same methods.)

Can you link to such a study that demonstrates that cows have less emotional depth than dogs using (e.g.) brain activity?

As you noted, dogs appear to have the emotional depth of a young human.

I don't know of one that directly compares dogs to cows, or cows to humans. Instead, I'm making an inference -- based on the studies I was able to find relating to cows, they seem to be targeting only the basest of emotions, and they show only the tiniest bits of those emotions, very similar to mice.

Lothar wrote:As you noted, dogs appear to have the emotional depth of a young human.

I don't know of one that directly compares dogs to cows, or cows to humans. Instead, I'm making an inference -- based on the studies I was able to find relating to cows, they seem to be targeting only the basest of emotions, and they show only the tiniest bits of those emotions, very similar to mice.

every highlight word refers to a very human lens. As I tried to point out, viewing the very human concepts of the nature of emotions, empathy, thought processes through human lens and making any sort of attempt to translate to the animal kingdom is sort of dicey. One can see things like rapidity of neuronal firing, complexity of neurotransmitter pathways, but veering off into purely human constructs is borderline comical.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:As you noted, dogs appear to have the emotional depth of a young human.

I don't know of one that directly compares dogs to cows, or cows to humans. Instead, I'm making an inference -- based on the studies I was able to find relating to cows, they seem to be targeting only the basest of emotions, and they show only the tiniest bits of those emotions, very similar to mice.

every highlight word refers to a very human lens

You're twisting my statements.

When I use the term "appear", I'm referring to the results of experiments, not to "looking at a dog and trying to read its body language" (being on the spectrum, I suck at that for humans, and am even worse for dogs.) Likewise, "show" and "inference" are references to the typical reasoning processes of science.

sorry, I'm just not buying the concept. For the reasons stated, there is a very limited amount of such behavior or activity that can be measured empirically. Everything else seems to me to be human inference. The cynic in me would say wishful thinking in some cases.

callmeslick wrote:there is a very limited amount of such behavior or activity that can be measured empirically

We can measure neural activity for most emotions.

Yes, there is probably some wishful thinking that happens when people are researching emotion in animals, but there's also plenty of skepticism, and some legit empirical results. I don't think the assessment of "dogs are fairly emotionally advanced, and cows are not" is all that far off (it's wrong, but that's relative.)

Lothar wrote:I don't know of one that directly compares dogs to cows, or cows to humans. Instead, I'm making an inference -- based on the studies I was able to find relating to cows, they seem to be targeting only the basest of emotions, and they show only the tiniest bits of those emotions, very similar to mice.

Can you link to those?

Not any more easily than you could google them. It's been long enough that I couldn't easily retrace my steps.

Lothar wrote:I think you read the opposite of what I said.

I said dolphins DO have a lot of emotions, while cows DO NOT. In spite of the vast ecosystem differences, we still are able to identify dolphins as highly emotional creatures. The fact that we can't identify the same in cows (which we've been around for much longer) is suggestive, though not proof, that the "characteristics of common humanity" argument does not apply to cows, though it might apply to some degree to dolphins, dogs, and very small humans.

I guess I misread your comment. I think what I was trying to get at was that dolphins didn't evolve along side us and interact with us like we did with dogs for example, because at least in our past human history, we rarely entered their realm and interacted with them as we did other intelligent land animals. Nowadays, that's changed. Our culture especially doesn't consider dolphins as food to just hunt and kill. We interact with dolphins in a lot more positive ways since we know they're intelligent animals.

Maybe you should inform the Japanese.

Yeah, I hadn't forgot about them in their hunting of dolphins and whales. The dolphin hunts are particularly cruel and sickening to watch. Maybe they need a lesson in what constitutes intelligence in an animal. They treat them like cattle. Actually, worse.

[youtube]qzN0iVJwfLg[/youtube]

Lothar wrote:Not any more easily than you could google them. It's been long enough that I couldn't easily retrace my steps.

I can't find any studies that look at brain activity or brain structure in cows to come to any conclusion about what emotional sophistication they have.

One of the first google results on the topic summarizes some other ways that scientists have found sophistication in the emotions they experience though:

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-emotio ... airy-cows/

And this is what happens when people believe the hoax.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/12/the_ter ... te_speech/

Ferno wrote:And this is what happens when people believe the hoax.

http://www.salon.com/2015/09/12/the_ter ... te_speech/

This article is on the same level as people who blame gay marriage for pedophilia.

I doubt that very much, Lothar. It's showing the very real and dangerous consequences of what happens when a bunch of motivated people take matters into their own hands.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... usual.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fire-at-was ... led-arson/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/ ... continues/
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... onstration

When an organization turns from legitimate protests to acts of violence, it loses all credibility immediately; and those who support it also lose credibility.

Ferno wrote:It's showing the very real and dangerous consequences of what happens when

... gays are allowed to marry. Right? Same exact argument. Or like blaming Muslims being able to build mosques for terrorism.

When an organization turns from legitimate protests to acts of violence

What "organization" are you referring to? Again, your comments are like when a right-winger talks about the "gay agenda" -- as if you're talking about a group with elections and leaders and hierarchy and a coherent agenda, and everyone with any sympathy whatsoever to the cause is somehow responsible for every action that can be traced to any individual sympathetic to the cause. It's a ridiculous broad brush.

I've been around actual pro-life organizations for most of my life; both of my parents have at different times been the president of a state-wide RtL organization. I've been at pro-life rallies. I've been at protests at abortion clinics. I have never heard calls for violence -- except by the pro-choice protesters across the street, yelling threats at me when I was a kid. What I've seen from the pro-life side are consistent calls for non-violently ending abortion, and swift condemnation of those who would use violence to accomplish that goal. But you would color us all based on the behavior of the extremists we actually expel from our organizations? There are people I expect broad-brush judgmentalism from, but I'm both disappointed and hurt to hear it coming from you.

Lothar wrote:

Ferno wrote: Or like blaming Muslims being able to build mosques for terrorism.

On the anniversary of 9/11 at the mosque fell building crane, owned by the family of Bin Laden. The ways of Allah are inscrutable.

That's amazing! It turns out that that's what American democracy really is!

Ferno wrote:I doubt that very much, Lothar. It's showing the very real and dangerous consequences of what happens when a bunch of motivated people take matters into their own hands.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... usual.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fire-at-was ... led-arson/
http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/ ... continues/
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/201 ... onstration

When an organization turns from legitimate protests to acts of violence, it loses all credibility immediately; and those who support it also lose credibility.

Which organisation would that be? From your Daily Beast link:

a Planned Parenthood clinic located an hour and a half north of the Pullman health center was bombed in 1996, leading to the sentencing of four Idaho men who belonged to an antigovernment militia.

Doesn't sound like a Right to Life group.

Lothar wrote:... gays are allowed to marry. Right? Same exact argument. Or like blaming Muslims being able to build mosques for terrorism.

do you honestly think so low of the counterpoint that you decided to butcher the context and resort to criticizing the words used??

What "organization" are you referring to?

the organization I refer to is the anti-abortion organization. A splinter group of the larger crowd has decided to take it upon themselves to firebomb clinics, and the larger crowd has not denounced their activities.

And the difference between the anti-gay crowd and the anti-abortion crowd is we don't see an anti-gay splinter group firebombing gay nightclubs.

I've been at pro-life rallies. I've been at protests at abortion clinics. I have never heard calls for violence

That's not proof.

What I've seen from the pro-life side are consistent calls for non-violently ending abortion, and swift condemnation of those who would use violence to accomplish that goal

Then you'd agree that the larger crowd has to step up the efforts to denounce the splinter group that has turned to violence. You say that you have been a part of the pro-life movement. It is up to you, and those who believe as you do, to deal with this splinter group. Because those are the people who make you look bad.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:... gays are allowed to marry. Right? Same exact argument. Or like blaming Muslims being able to build mosques for terrorism.

do you honestly think so low of the counterpoint that you decided to butcher the context

I think the counterpoint is weak for exactly the same reason as my response shows -- you're arguing about "the consequences" of an entire movement, but you're focusing on a tiny fringe that the main movement rejects. You're not focusing on the actual consequences of the movement, you're focusing on wackos who we consistently denounce.

What "organization" are you referring to?

the organization I refer to is the anti-abortion organization. A splinter group of the larger crowd has decided to take it upon themselves to firebomb clinics, and the larger crowd has not denounced their activities.

The larger group consistently denounces violence. During my childhood, every time there was any sort of violent anti-abortion action taken anywhere in the country, whichever of my parents was currently head of the state RtL organization would immediately write up a statement denouncing that violence and calling for respecting the sanctity of all life, including the lives of abortionists. Those statements would go right at the top of the state organization website, with similar statements on the other 49 state websites and the national one, and all of these were issued as press releases and sent to our local papers and news stations. You can find statements from every major pro-life organization condemning violence in general and in response to specific incidents (examples: ARtL anti-violence ethics worksheet written by an old family friend, OR on Tiller, NRLC on Tiller, NCLP on the Atlanta bombing.)

Why don't you think the larger crowd denounces those activities? Why are you ignorant of the consistent denouncements of violence? To be blunt, because the mainstream press doesn't care about the denouncements. "Anti-abortion activists bomb clinic" fits the narrative they want to push; "largest anti-abortion organization in the nation denounces bombing" doesn't. The mainstream press doesn't publish the pro-life denouncements, because they want to mislead you to exactly the mistaken position you just expressed. They want you to believe that the pro-life movement encourages violence and doesn't denounce it. Lies of omission are still lies.

I've seen the media bias in a lot more ways. In my early teens, I attended a pro-life rally of a few hundred people, where the adults in the crowd were about 80% women, including many young mothers with their children. Across the street was a small counter-protest of under a dozen twenty-something males yelling profanities and even death threats. Yet somehow when it got on TV, the one shot of the "pro-life protest" was a few seconds of an old guy wearing a suit and holding a Bible and a sign with a Bible quote, and there was mention of a "counter-protest", and then about a minute-long interview with a well-dressed female lawyer talking about women's rights. This same general portrayal happened every year -- the news never showed pro-life women, like the teen girl who had survived abortion and was our keynote speaker one year, and the only people they actually showed speaking complete sentences were pro-choice women.

The pro-life movement as a whole rejects violence, both inside and outside of the womb. We unequivocally condemn the violent actions of all types that unstable individuals sometimes commit in our name. You no longer have an excuse for believing the lie that we do not.