I only brought up the past because I thought it's use against Sanger to try to discredit birth control, abortion, etc. was selective and disengenuous (charitably). In fact the use of Sanger herself can be so characterized. I'll bet most woman of today know hardly anything about her, regardless of their position on the issues. So let's drop the past and consider the issues of today on their own terms.
I know plenty of pro-abortion people. None of them consider an abortion to be a great joy. At least one of my closest friends experienced bloody nightmares for years after undergoing one. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are casual about it. I'm saying I don't know them and can't speak for them.
The difference between pro-abortion and pro-life is one of different perceptions of reality and different ethical structures (not ethics vs. no ethics). Pro-abortion people believe that it is entirely unrealistic to expect people to give up sexuality outide of marriage, or to be be willing to see off-spring result from such unions. Therefore it is as reasonable to legalize abortion as it is to legalize alcohol. Or - in the contrary - it is as unreasonable to prohibit abortion as it was to prohibit alcohol.
Pro-life people respond by saying there's a great difference between drunkenness and murder. And so there is. Sub-rosa of course there's the religious issue. But there are legitimate questions - probably never resolveable scientifically - about when human life actually begins. And there are questions about who actually holds life to be sacred, regardless of what is said. I was struck by the Freeper response to 911. Nuke 'em! It's not a legal issue! War! Well, we all know what that means; the mass death of innocents including babies, dogs, trees, the old, the weak, flowers. I wonder how many of those expressing such sentiments are pro-life? And of those how many will justify their position by saying that there are considerations which transcend a baby's right to life?
And finally there's the issue of birth control. Far too many pro-lifers are against birth conrtol (except abstinence) and do everything they can to prevent dissemination of information and devices - despite what you say about its morality.
But this can be said of most anything. The Bible addresses this:
Romans 14:(10) You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. (11) It is written: "`As surely as I live,' says the Lord, `every knee will bow before me; every tongue will confess to God.'" (12) So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. (13) Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. (14) As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. (15) If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. (16) Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. (17) For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, (18) because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men. (19) Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. (20) Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble.Obviously, food is only one example of what may cause someone else to stumble. Our behavior should be one which does not cause another to have problems. Things that are offensive to another, but not to ourselves, well, don't do it or discuss it with that person. That is not being a hypocrit. That is being sensitive to another. An example: if I am around someone who has a problem with my drinking alcohol (i.e., an alcoholic), then I should be sensitive and not serve alcoholic beverages if I have invited him/her to my home for dinner. If, however, it is a celebration and alcohol is expected (such as, perhaps, a New Year's party), then I should be sensitive to my friend's possible discomfort and let him/her know that alcohol will be served. They can then make an informed decision of whether or not they would want to come. (And I'm not suggesting that a New Year's celebration with alcohol would entail a wild drunken party.)
Those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat it. To ignore the racist eugenic roots of population control is to ignore what it really is. I will not do so.
I know plenty of pro-abortion people. None of them consider an abortion to be a great joy. At least one of my closest friends experienced bloody nightmares for years after undergoing one. I'm not saying there aren't people out there who are casual about it. I'm saying I don't know them and can't speak for them.
No they don't consider a great joy, they are victims of the abortion industry and the culture of death as well. We all suffer from it, not just the babies who are murdered.
The difference between pro-abortion and pro-life is one of different perceptions of reality and different ethical structures (not ethics vs. no ethics). Pro-abortion people believe that it is entirely unrealistic to expect people to give up sexuality outide of marriage, or to be be willing to see off-spring result from such unions. Therefore it is as reasonable to legalize abortion as it is to legalize alcohol. Or - in the contrary - it is as unreasonable to prohibit abortion as it was to prohibit alcohol.
I agree it is not a matter of ethics vs. no-ethics. Rather it is a question of an ethics which recognizes abortion as the irredemably evil act that it is and a faulty ethics which seeks to rationalize abortion as a means to end.
But there are legitimate questions - probably never resolveable scientifically - about when human life actually begins.
There are not questions about when life begins. Any biologist with half a brain knows that a fetus is life and is human. The question is whether it is a person, and this cannot demonstrated scientifically- nor does it need to be.
I was struck by the Freeper response to 911. Nuke 'em! It's not a legal issue! War! Well, we all know what that means; the mass death of innocents including babies, dogs, trees, the old, the weak, flowers. I wonder how many of those expressing such sentiments are pro-life? And of those how many will justify their position by saying that there are considerations which transcend a baby's right to life?
It's easy to argue against a straw man called a 'Freeper.' Don't generalize there are people on this forum who hold vastly different views. I think you are right in that one cannot claim to be pro-life when seeking to indiscriminately attack life in other respect. I personally believe the description of which conflicts constitute a 'just war' is very narrow.
And finally there's the issue of birth control. Far too many pro-lifers are against birth conrtol (except abstinence) and do everything they can to prevent dissemination of information and devices - despite what you say about its morality.
I am personally against birth control, but the more important issue here is the coercive population control which seeks to force birth control and abortion upon 3rd world women. There have been many deaths and injuries due to the actions of those spreading the gospel of infertility.