quote:Jay, what you don't seem to understand is that the ACLU is not against religion; it is against the government controlling religion.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of their position. It's accurate in what it states, but it only addresses one relatively small type of first amendment claim that the ACLU is involved in.
The ACLU has supported several judicial interpretations of the establishment clause that have later been held to be unconstitutionally violative of the first amendment's demand that government exhibit content neutrality in the funding and regulation of speech. This is not an issue of government control of religion.
They have also supported many Christians' in their exercise of their right to free expression, something Jay would do well to admit right now.
I think the ACLU is often on the correct side of establishment cases. I also think they often go too far in their interpretation of the establishment clause. I'm glad that there are finally pro bono groups with the legal resources to oppose them regularly in court and to prevent government officials from giving in to ACLU establishment clause demands that are not constitutionally founded.
I'm also glad that the ACLU exists, though, because I think the proper way to draw the lines is in adversarial positions. The groups who most often oppose the ACLU in establishment cases often go too far in their interpretation. I'm glad that the ACLU exists to oppose these other groups regularly in court and to prevent government officials from giving in to their establishment clause demands that are not constitutionally founded.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think that the ACLU is good for religion for a couple of reasons. The first is that, although the practice of my religion is not currently threatened by the government, if we don't guard that gate, it could be.
I think that my faith requires me to be concerned with the religious freedoms of others.
I think that being too closely allied with secular power is a bad thing for Christianity. We have a tendency to forget what we are supposed to be about.
posted
I agree with all that, kmboots. I just think that, sometimes, the ACLU is harming, not helping religious freedom, as are the groups that are generally in opposition to the ACLU.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know kmbboots, you can really stop with you’re whole “Anything yet Jay” “Still there Jay” because you’re not fooling anyone. Some of us work during the day and occasionally check the site during breaks and what not.
I never said there was a case. You’re looking silly by trying to say that I did. I’ve already addressed this so why not try and reading for once. You might learn something. It’s getting to the point of being pointless. Sort of like Tom’s question. Stats? Get real. You know I don’t have access to that sort of stuff. Nor any desire or time to do that sort of research. But since you’re interested do it yourself! See what ya find. But I doubt we’d agree on things as simple as what is an antichristian case. And Dag, I’ve already said they get some right once in a while.
Oh, kmbboots, I’m going on a run now. So I won’t be on for a while. I plan a 7 mile loop which takes me just over an hour. So don’t panic. And I might not check as soon as I get back. Go figure. But thanks for the extra adrenalin from all the frustration.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would be like a liberal trying to stop an abortion.
I know several "liberals" who think the government should restrict abortion but abhor the practice. They support all sorts of adoption agencies and educational materiel that would persuade a pregnant mother to have the baby.
Just because you oppose the government making the final choice does not mean you are "pro-abortion." I am very anti-abortion. I would never date someone who had an abortion (unless for medical reasons or rape). I am, however, really uncomfortable with the government deciding what a woman can do.
I don't want to get off on an abortion tangent--that is far to easy and counterproductive to this good discussion. I just wanted to point out the narrowminded singularity that Jay is using to defend his position and attack the ACLU.
Jay is doing a pretty good job of forcing me to rethink my conservative views and distance myself from people from the extreme right.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Dag, I’ve already said they get some right once in a while.
So? Does that mean I shouldn't have posted? You've made generalizations that you can't back up. There are legitimate criticisms to be levied at the ACLU's stands on first amendment issues. Every time someone decides to make accusations they can't back up, you make it harder for those who want to rationally discuss such failings by the ACLU to be heard.
The cartoon stated that the ACLU would have supported a student in the exact same situation changing only a "thank you Jesus" to a taking of the Lord's name in vain. That's a very serious charge. You repeatedly said the cartoon was accurate and you've been asked to prove it.
quote:Stats? Get real. You know I don’t have access to that sort of stuff.
So your statement about the "vast number of cases" being anti-Christian is what, then? A guess? An estimate based on a random sample? A made up description?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know I don’t have access to that sort of stuff. Nor any desire or time to do that sort of research.
Um. Okay, that's fine. I don't need to see the stats. But I'm curious as to why you think you actually know anything in this case. What makes you feel like the ACLU is overwhelmingly anti-Christian in everything it does, if you are completely unable to produce any argument to support that claim -- and, in fact, have been presented with specific cases that seem to directly refute that claim (if only for limited instances)?
Have you heard people you trust make this claim? Is it a conclusion you've reached after a great deal of prayer or soul-searching? Where, if you don't actually know anything about the topic, have you obtained enough information to form an opinion on the ACLU?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am, however, really uncomfortable with the government deciding what a woman can do.
Nothing against lem's comment here, but ...
It's interesting to me how the pro-abortion side in that debate always uses the phrase "a woman" to refer to the person whose choices are at issue, even when the phrase doesn't flow well in the sentence. It is as though they want to insinuate that the person's gender is the reason why their choices are being restricted, or is the reason why their choices should not be.
From my perspective, it isn't the fault of the government or the anti-abortion lobby that only one gender has the capacity to become pregnant. If abortion is wrong, then the gender of the subject is irrelevant. Wrong is wrong whether you're male or female.
I'd rather have the abortion debate be about the question of whether or not abortion is wrong, regardless of the gender of the pregnant person. In fact, it might be interesting to try the debate without bringing gender into it at all — perhaps addressing it entirely in terms of whether it is ethical for a doctor to perform an abortion, rather than whether it is ethical for a person to receive one.
Just to see if the debate changes at all when you remove the weight of decades of women's repression and liberation from around the debaters' necks, and treat it as an issue for humanity as a whole, regardless of sex.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, gender has been vital to this debate. Originally, church fathers and politicians, all men, cast into law that women could not have abortions. The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
It leaves the image of the dominant male telling the barefoot woman, "You will give birth to this child. That is 9 months of discomfort and loss to any other plans you may have. Then you can decide to either raise this child dedicating your life to it, or give it away. Me, I have to go play golf and meet my mistress at 3."
As women become more equal in our society, the pro-life movement has stepped away from the patriarchal father figure commenting in mostly ignorance, on the trials and tribulation of pregnancy and single motherhood.
No, I do not wish to see gender removed from the issue. I would rather see positive talks between women on both sides.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is as though they want to insinuate that the person's gender is the reason why their choices are being restricted, or is the reason why their choices should not be.
I used to have question this logic myself, since I always thought (in my own version of sexism) that since it was women that got all gaga over having babies, that women would be against abortion.
Then I got a vasectomy, and several men I worked with tried to talk me out of it. I didn't understand that either, but gradually I figured it out.
For some men, the ability to reproduce is inseparable from their sense of manhood. If they can't beget chidren, they aren't "real men." It undermined their sense of masculinity to think that I have no qualms whatsoever about rendering myself infertile, and that really shook them.
At first I simply could not conceive of what was bothering them so much, until abortion came into the picture. To them, the ability of a woman to abort "the fruit of their loins" was tantamount to an after-the-fact castration.
Unfortunately it only takes a few examples of this kind of thinking to create the conception that this is the real reason men are against abortion.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes Dag, you should have posted. I was just saying that I had acknowledged that on a limited basis that the ACLU does support Christians though seldom.
Where do I draw this basis? From my own experience with the news. 9 times out of 10 (if not more) the ACLU is, to me, on the wrong side of an issue. If drawing from my own experiences and knowledge isn’t good enough then you all should quit arguing too. If nothing else do a web search. How about this little test. Do a goggle search on ACLU and flip over to the news side. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=aclu&sa=N&tab=wn I’ll admit right up front I didn’t read all the articles, but just looking at the headlines all but one of them seem to be left wing causes. The articles might change of course by the time you Goggle them, but I suspect similar results.
Good idea Puppy. Also, why does the dad not have any say? What about the baby, shouldn’t they get a vote, it’s their life. When you come down to it though they don’t want to discuss the implications and morality of murdering an innocent child.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:just looking at the headlines all but one of them seem to be left wing causes.
Are you equating "left wing" with "antichristian" now?
Look, I'll never give the ACLU a dollar of my money or a minute of my professional time because of their views on abortion. That doesn't mean that I can't recognize that they have been one of the foremost advocates of civil liberties in the last century. Much of their work is religious neutral - criminal procedure, non-religious speech restrictions, etc. Another chunk directly helps the religious, including Christians. Another chunk generally frustrates a particular religious group, but at least part of the time it does so on behalf of other Christians.
quote:If drawing from my own experiences and knowledge isn’t good enough then you all should quit arguing too.
You're the one not only making statistical claims but also ridiculing the very idea of disagreement with your ideas on the subject.
Had you said, "My impression..." no one would have complained. However, you chose to act indignant at people for daring not to accept the absolute statements you now say are based on your experiences. When you stake out a narrow position, don't consider it unfair when you are asked to support it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That doesn't mean that I can't recognize that they have been one of the foremost advocates of civil liberties in the last century.
Civil liberties = left wing. I love hearing that, and I'm not even a leftist. I'm just an anti-rightist. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always love how things always get turned around. This all started with me asking to be shown how it was inaccurate. Which I still maintain the analogy he used is very true.
I still think the Goggle search pretty much proves my point. Let’s see… antichristian I think could be considered left wing. The media always talks about those religious right wingers. So sure, why not. But if we want to look at the Goggle search right now. We’ve got drugs, sex offenders, same sex marriage, not praising God in public. Those seem to qualify as antichristian arguments. At least in most churches. And no, I’m sorry, I don’t have any data to show that this is the case in most churches. I’m assuming this from my experiences with churches and from studying the believes of different religions.
Tom not left wing? That’s like the sun not being bright. Water not being wet. Cats being friends with dogs. Whoda thunk it.
Sigh…. I’m going to bed. Night Hatrack.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This all started with me asking to be shown how it was inaccurate.
Did you see my points, Jay? I enumerated each, and then obliterated your objections. Which of my points do you feel has been insufficiently supported?
---------
And no, I'm not left wing. I do however prize my civil liberties, which means I'm an enemy of this administration. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I always love how things always get turned around. This all started with me asking to be shown how it was inaccurate. Which I still maintain the analogy he used is very true.
It wasn't an analogy. It was a factual prediction: If X, then Y. You make it, you'll be asked to support it. You haven't. Admitting it would be a good start.
quote:Tom not left wing? That’s like the sun not being bright. Water not being wet. Cats being friends with dogs. Whoda thunk it.
Proof you need to expand your definitions. Left wing does not mean "People who disagree with Jay."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry you don’t understand what an analogy is.
Excuse me?
Limited liability corporation is to member as corporation is to shareholder.
Acorn is to oak tree as bulb is to tulip.
If the ACLU's willingness to support a student in the same exact situation except for taking the Lord's name in vain instead of thanking Jesus is an analogy, please cast the cartoon into the form of an analogy for poor confused Tom and me.
quote:And by the way….. Tom is one of the most left of people I know. And no. I don’t intend to proof it.
Wow. Is it the meaning of "left" you don't know anything about, or merely Tom's views?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let’s see… the only view I know that Tom has that isn’t left is abortion. I do thank him for his support there. And yes, I know what left is. Opposite of Right! ;-)
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I don't doubt that Tom's the most leftist person you've discussed politics with. I just don't think that really says anything particular about Tom.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet you haven't proved that they would be for Vain. You raised the concept of an analogy as if that would somehow make you correct.
And, yet, you still haven't been able to introduce the tiniest shred of evidence that they would support a student who deviated from the script to take the Lord's name in vain.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Going against freedom of speech for God as is going for someone taking the Lord’s name in vain.
Jay, did you not READ my post in which I attempted to explain to you how the two situations were not analogous? Did you understand it?
Her speech was not "freedom of speech for God." And even were someone specifically attempting to restrict "freedom of speech for God," it does not follow that they would endorse "blasphemy;" one position is not inherent in the other.
Your analogy fails on almost every level: 1) There was no presumption of "freedom of speech" in her address; she and the other speakers had to submit pre-approved remarks, and were told that any deviation from the approved remarks would result in loss of speaking privileges.
2) Her microphone was not cut off because she mentioned God; it was specifically cut off because she deviated from the version of her speech which was approved. Had someone else deviated from their speech to a similar degree, even to curse God's name, it is reasonable to assume that they, too, would have been cut off -- unless you can show otherwise.
3) Even if she was prevented from "speaking for God," it does not mean that the people who prevented her were anti-Christian, or would approve a speech that spoke against God. That's like saying that anyone who stops you from painting a white wall red must want the wall to be blue.
----------
Jay: I'm a gun rack and a case of rabies shy of being a Libertarian. Tell me again how leftist I am. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, it's okay. In at least one way, I AM leftist: I believe that the government has no business saving us from ourselves and certainly has no right to dictate morality to anyone; I oppose any attempt to use institutional authority to prop up or promote someone's moral framework, for that reason.
I also suspect that, in the current climate, communications technology and health care might benefit from federal oversight -- and I think Social Security isn't a bad idea, given the way we currently handle retirement. But I'd rather change the climate than regulate these things, in the long run, which complicates my position on them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, you’re premise being that she would deviate from the speech. I could really care less about the deviation. I think she had the right to say what she wrote. And if she would have wrote from the beginning taking the Lord’s name in vain the ACLU would have been right with her from the star before anyone had the chance to cut her off to say she has the right to do that based on that most of their cases are antichristian. And no Tom, I probably didn’t get what you meant. I hardly ever do since most of the time you speak in questions and don’t explain yourself.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think she had the right to say what she wrote.
This is a position that can be argued. In fact, in another thread on this topic, we had some people discuss whether a speaker in this situation would have an inherent right to say anything. For example, could she endorse Stalin? Try to sell OrangeGlo? Talk about an affair she had with her science teacher? Does a school have the right to censor its speakers, or should a speaker by virtue of her grades be permitted to talk about anything she wants?
There's obviously a grey area. The school chose to reject her initial speech -- and having seen her proposed speech, I think they made the right choice; it's a blatant commercial for Christianity in the same way that a plug for OrangeGlo would be a commercial for that product, and it would likely be offensive to non-Christians in the audience in a way that an OrangeGlo ad would not be offensive to Pine-Sol users.
quote:And if she would have wrote from the beginning taking the Lord’s name in vain the ACLU would have been right with her from the star before anyone had the chance to cut her off to say she has the right to do that based on that most of their cases are antichristian.
I'm not sure of this at all. First off, I reject the claim that most of the ACLU's cases are "anti-Christian," and your inability to back up this argument doesn't help your case. Moreover, the ACLU tends to take cases that it thinks would establish interesting precedent. I suspect that if she had approached them prior to giving her speech and they had felt that this was a compelling -- and winnable -- position, they would have helped her, regardless of what her speech was. But as I noted above, there's an obvious slippery slope here that makes it ridiculous to claim that a school has no right whatsoever to censor its speakers. At best, the ACLU could only hope to more clearly delineate the rights of someone invited to speak in a similar situation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if she would have wrote from the beginning taking the Lord’s name in vain the ACLU would have been right with her from the star before anyone had the chance to cut her off to say she has the right to do that based on that most of their cases are antichristian.
This is the proposition you have utterly failed to support. People have cited cases where Chrisitians' free speech rights were protected by the ACLU. This seems to counter an allegation that the ACLU automatically picks the non-Christian side of any given controversy. Lacking any evidence for your position other than a list of cases you have deemed antiChristian, you fail to prove your original contention.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Hum. The numbers you quote do not necessarily contradict the assertion made. You have shown that more women than men are pro-total-ban; given that there exists a 'neutral' position, it is still possible that most of the pro-choice people are women.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ACLU isn't against all religion. When they demanded that LA remove the small cross from its seal, they had no problem with the much larger image of Pomona, the goddess of orchards.
They also aren't always against political expression. In VA, they threatened lawsuit to ban a "Choose Life" license plate design, saying that it constituted endorsement of a religion (?). They had no problem with "Kids First" or "Protect Wildlife."
On abortion: consistently, in poll after poll, women are more likely to oppose legal abortion than men. The difference is small but statistically significant. I don't have an explanation, and I don't see it as proof that either side is right; but it does put paid to the idea that "women" support legal elective abortion. Some do, some don't.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, fine. You can say I haven’t proved it. But I think the goggle search shows very compelling evidence to the contrary.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, fine. You can say I haven’t proved it. But I think the goggle search shows very compelling evidence to the contrary.
No, it doesn't. Geez, are you really this bad at logic? You made a SPECIFIC allegation: that they would support someone in the exact same situation who wanted to take the Lord's name in vain instead of thanking Jesus.
The facts of the case matter. You might go around deciding what you're going to do based on broad, ill-defined and ill-understood categorizations. The ACLU does not, for the simple reason that every position they take has to be reduced to a specific legal argument founded in specific legal premises and facts. Everything they do is about distinguishing one situation from another.
All your "evidence" shows is that the ACLU takes a lot of stands that piss off some people who call themselves Christians. That's not evidence at all that they will therefore take any stand that will piss off those people.
Come on now. This farce has gone on long enough. From the first time you started posting on political topics here, you've engaged in this simplistic charade, calling people "liberal" because they disagree with you on a specific issue and making unsupportable claims about what motivates others. It's time to stop this. There's a lot of intelligent discourse to be had on this board. For some reason, it never seems to happen when you're around.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The majority of those who are pro-choice are women, because it is their bodies and their futures that are being discussed.
Can you cite this? The studies I've seen shown women to be more likely to want a total ban on abortion.
Here's one example, about a third down the page. 32% of men support a ban except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother, 8% support a total ban. The numbers for women are 31% and 11%.
Hum. The numbers you quote do not necessarily contradict the assertion made. You have shown that more women than men are pro-total-ban; given that there exists a 'neutral' position, it is still possible that most of the pro-choice people are women.
A simple click would have shown you that women are slightly outnumbered by men on the two pro-choice options in the survey, KoM.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well Dag, I usually find you very insightful and informative but this time you seem to have stooped to the Tom level of arguing. As I have said multiple times the EXACT case of taking the Lord’s name in vain does not exist, it was meant as an analogy from the typical way that the ACLU functions. I have showed this from various places. You might not like where or how, but I have. Who is the one that is bad at logic? You keep trying to say that I’m looking for this specific case when I’m not. It’s really hard to argue when this is your only defense. Plus you two always want to go to the mic being cut off instead of taking the issue from the beginning where they wanted to edit the speech. That’s where the issue really starts. And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around. Sure I’m saying this might happen. I really think what pisses you all off is that you can’t proof that it wouldn’t happen.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
You are operating based on double standards here. Claims you believe are obviously true are given the benefit of the doubt, with support only of anecdotal cherry-picked Internet news reports.
Claims you believe are obviously false, you repeatedly insist that rock-hard factual statistics be demonstrated from totally unimpeachable sources, which you proceed to grant the same level of credibility as your own anecdotal cherry-picked Internet news.
You've done it at least a half-dozen times on this thread alone. It does neither you nor your arguments any favors. In fact and unfortunately, it makes your arguments appear foolish because of this blatant double-standard being used. I say unfortunately because on more than one occassion in the past, I have agreed with the general thrust of your statements, but am almost always completely unable to maintain that agreement beyond generalities.
quote:And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around.
With no proof. Not even good evidence.
You've picked a standard - an ill-defined standard - of "antiChristian." You've contended that the ACLU uses this standard in selecting cases.
To prove this, you've selected a bunch of cases you claim match the "antiChristian" criteria you've created and said, "See, the ACLU takes antiChristian cases."
The problem is that there are other case-selection criteria that can be tested against the ACLU's cases that fit better than this anomalous "antiChristian" criteria, for two reasons:
1.) These other criteria account for the case selection history.
2.) These other criteria don't have counterexamples, whereas your antiChristian criteria has dozens, probably hundreds of counter examples.
Your criteria fails step two.
quote:I really think what pisses you all off is that you can’t proof that it wouldn’t happen.
But we can prove that, in the past, the ACLU has acted to protect Christian speech. So the question becomes, what's different between these cases? It's not the Christian content of the speech. Therefore, the Christian content of the speech is unlikely to be determinative.
What pisses me off is that you said the cartoon was 100% accurate, leveling a fairly serious charge at the ACLU, and you can't acknowledge that you have no evidence at all for your position.
Here's what would support your argument:
1.) Find two cases, one taken by the ACLU, one not. 2.) The one taken by the ACLU contains anti-Christian speech. 3.) The one not taken includes Christian speech. 4.) There are no other significant differences between them.
If you can't find that, then you've got nothing. Because your contention isn't that the ACLU takes cases with the desired result of stopping some particular Christian speech. That's easy to prove.
Your contention is that in identical circumstances, the ACLU would support antiChristian speech and require Christian speech to be suppressed. This is a very particular charge.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I have said multiple times the EXACT case of taking the Lord’s name in vain does not exist, it was meant as an analogy from the typical way that the ACLU functions.
Jay, I really don't think you know what an analogy is.
quote:Plus you two always want to go to the mic being cut off instead of taking the issue from the beginning where they wanted to edit the speech. That’s where the issue really starts. And where I’d maintain that the ACLU would step in the other way around.
And I maintain that they wouldn't, especially if your idea of "the other way around" is "taking the Lord's name in vain" -- but agree that if one were to file a court case, one would do it to challenge the requirement of pre-approved scripts.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A simple click would have shown you that women are slightly outnumbered by men on the two pro-choice options in the survey, KoM.
I would contend that the overwhelming majority of "actively" pro-choice people are women. Meaning those who attend rallies, who picket, who lobby, who pass out petitions, who create flyers, things of this nature. Its one thing to be pro-choice by checking a box on a survey, its another to be an actual advocate.
I admittedly have absolutely no evidence to back this claim, beyond my own experiences and through the media. I would be interested in hearing if anyone else's experiences are in contradiction of mine.
Anyway, great posts in regard to the ACLU, Dag.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would contend that the overwhelming majority of "actively" pro-choice people are women.
Also only from my own experiences, the overwhelming majority of actively pro-life people are women. It's generally 2-to-1 women-to-men at planning meetings and such, and probably 1.5-to-1 at rallies and such.
posted
It makes sense to me that most of the activists on both sides of the abortion issue are women (if that's the case generally). As a male, I think there's a difference between wanting a say in whether abortion is allowed and wanting a say in whether my significant other gets one.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, how does the Phelps case have any relation to the Smith case? Aside from Phelps' and Smith's positions on homosexuality, of course.
Posts: 1357 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
