Chris,
I think he meant intolerable to the public, not objectively intolerable. Abortion obviously has always been objectively intolerable.
Well, the ultrasound movies have been around for more than 20 years — why would a smile do what the silent scream couldn’t do?
Most pro abortion activists have given up on the lump of protoplasm argument long ago (except for the first few weeks). Woman’s right to choose trumps all other objective facts.
As a veteran of the pro-life wars since 1967, perhaps, I may shed some light on the matter.
Michael is quite right. One of Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s biggest disappointments was the utter failure of his controversial film The Silent Scream to change the abortion debate, as he naively believed would be the case.
This false optimism arose, in part, from Nathanson’s legalistic mindset, which saw abortion as a “debate” in which the right argument would change secular minds like his own–remember this is the pre-conversion.
(The same mindset apparently sanctioned financing the filming of a murder without an attempt to stop it.)
A comment box does not allow room to develop a thesis, but I would add that the secularization of abortion into a “civil rights” issue–an event preceeding Nathanson by many years–also contributed to a diminished appreciation of the true nature of the evil of child slaughter and the deliberate downplaying of its Origin (and origins).
“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” (Eph. 6:12).
Do not debate murder; stop it!
Just my thoughts,
Earl
Times Against Humanity
PS–Chris’ corrective was in order, his anonymous rebutter’s apologia notwithstanding.
Words are weapons regardless of intent, as Nathanson would concur.
It already is intolerable.
Chris,
I think he meant intolerable to the public, not objectively intolerable. Abortion obviously has always been objectively intolerable.
Well, the ultrasound movies have been around for more than 20 years — why would a smile do what the silent scream couldn’t do?
Most pro abortion activists have given up on the lump of protoplasm argument long ago (except for the first few weeks). Woman’s right to choose trumps all other objective facts.
As a veteran of the pro-life wars since 1967, perhaps, I may shed some light on the matter.
Michael is quite right. One of Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s biggest disappointments was the utter failure of his controversial film The Silent Scream to change the abortion debate, as he naively believed would be the case.
This false optimism arose, in part, from Nathanson’s legalistic mindset, which saw abortion as a “debate” in which the right argument would change secular minds like his own–remember this is the pre-conversion.
(The same mindset apparently sanctioned financing the filming of a murder without an attempt to stop it.)
A comment box does not allow room to develop a thesis, but I would add that the secularization of abortion into a “civil rights” issue–an event preceeding Nathanson by many years–also contributed to a diminished appreciation of the true nature of the evil of child slaughter and the deliberate downplaying of its Origin (and origins).
“For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.” (Eph. 6:12).
Do not debate murder; stop it!
Just my thoughts,
Earl
Times Against Humanity
PS–Chris’ corrective was in order, his anonymous rebutter’s apologia notwithstanding.
Words are weapons regardless of intent, as Nathanson would concur.