In my opinion the abortion should remain legal. Pro-life movement should use ALL there resource in educating this young men and women about sex, risk and alternative of safe sex instead of making illegal the abortion.

Sorry for my English.

I think it is insincere to say that most Pro-life organizations only stop abortions but do nothing else. In fact most do help with clothes, diapers, food, finances, health care, counseling – and education. Some also heop with housing. In your research what positive things did you find?

Pro life people differ as much as Christians do (look at how many denominations there are, some of which are fine with abortion — like the Methodists.)

Beets, you, and people like you, are the reason why people think “teh internets is stupid”. Why, do you ask? Shall I support my argument? Sure, why not!

Antigone has done what we call a “case study”, or in this instance a series of case studies. She has compiled demographic data about the organizations AS THEY SELF-REPORTED ON THEIR OWN SITE. She explains her exact definitions and methods for classification, and then reports the factors she studies, and her conclusions. In other words, the vast majority of what she’s done is REPORT THE FACTS of these organizations AS THEY SELF-REPORTED THEM, in convenient tabular form, so everyone can compare the results.

Let’s review, and break down EXACTLY where and why you are being either ignorant or deliberately deceptive (and yes, this is what we call “a correct use of fallacies”):

“AD HOMINEM ATTACK: attacking the personal instead of the argument

“Could this list be any less useful scientifically?”

– Uhm, it’s not like this is being submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal. And it’s certainly more scientific than any Internet poll/survey ever conducted, ever.

“Who are you to parse the language?”

– First of all, anyone can parse language however they want. Now, if you are trying to say she has no authority to be believed, well, as she explaines (later), she’s a graduate of communication. And, again as she said, she didn’t “parse the language”, so this isn’t the vague deceptive tactic you’re implying. (And, might I add, if you want to see if she was misinterpreting, you could go check it out yourself and see if you disagree and the organization isn’t really “Christian” — oh wait, you don’t go check out ANYTHING. You just assume. My bad.)

“Ahahahahahahaha.

Thanks for disqualifying yourself immediately. Which community college, by the way?”

– This ad hominem is quite obvious and, frankly, a low blow. “College graduate” almost always means “post-bachelor’s”, and even if it WAS a community college, that doesn’t make the education lower quality, or make her less qualified to evaluate it. Especially ironic coming from someone who mixes up all their (there/their/they’re)s, indicating that you have little to NO college, or if you are, you’re not one to be pointing fingers.

“Didn’t they teach you about propaganda in your Media Literacy 101 class?”

STRAW MAN: to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent

“Would you discount “Christian” groups who opposed, say, slavery, or genocide in Africa, or land mines?”

“And further, what is the point of the survey if not to discount organizations who support an end to abortion by pointing out there religious affiliation?”

[ First of all, it's "their". Plural possessive, not a noun describing location. Grammar nazi, and all that. ]

“If you’re not interested in whether or not they are Christian, then it seems an awfully strange metric to focus on.”

– Nowhere did Antigone say that Christian groups should be discounted, nor did she EVER say that their religious affiliation didn’t interest her. Pointing out that most anti-abortion groups are Christian or Christian-affiliated does help with the argument that such groups should not be permitted to make their religious beliefs into law…separation of church and state and all that.

“I notice you left out many other potential criteria here, and have instead focused in on a dim set meant to inflame preconceived notions.”

– Actually, one purpose of this was to see, SCIENTIFICALLY, if the “suspicions” and “preconcieved notions” had basis in fact and evidence to support it. They do! Yay!

As for “many other potential criteria”, you mention only two (and you don’t mention why they would matter, whereas religious affiliation DOES matter in church-and-state arguments) and I suspect looking for corporate or hate-group connections would yield little results. You are welcome to check that out, though even if you did I don’t see how that would affect the conclusions she (and most other feminists, progressives, and liberals) come to. (I am laughing to myself at the thought of you actually bothering to follow up on this. I am so naive sometimes!)

“The straw man of “whether or not they support welfare for mothers” is so easily countered, that including it can only be seen as inept. Have you ever heard of Catholic Charities? Are you actually claiming that Christian’s don’t support the poor and the indigent? Where are the facts for that? … [insert other random claims of "straw man" here that are completely, how shall I say, WRONG.]

– It’s quite funny that you’re claims of a straw main contain, in fact, a straw man. First of all, what she’s saying isn’t a straw man (see definition above) but could possibly be argued as irrelevant or not connected (another fallacy, perhaps a red herring). Second, she does not say Christians don’t support charities and the poor. And seeing if the groups who advocate against abortion are willing to pay support for the resulting unwanted children that will be born to unprepared mothers is absolutely relevant to her argument. The fastest way to throw yourself into poverty or live on charity is having a child. They’re expensive. Many women who get abortions get them because they know they would not be able to financially support their children; the resulting question is, are you willing to provide something for women to support their children with, so they can have them (without ruining their lives)? It’s really not all that disconnected.

RED HERRING: an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue

“Would you discount “Christian” groups who opposed, say, slavery, or genocide in Africa, or land mines?”

“Are you actually claiming that Christian’s don’t support the poor and the indigent? Where are the facts for that? Oh, because they don’t necessarily (probably most Catholics excluded) support the default State support of the poor. Are all other forms of support useless if they don’t flow from the Mother State? Only if you are profoundly anti-religious.”

And what I like to call, ATTEMPTING TO DISTRACT AND CAST DOUBT VIA RHETORICAL BULLSHIT (Also called “Ways to reduce Cognitive dissonance!”) : Minimizing the possible value such a study could have. Making distracting claims and questions of validity without bothering to present any proof that the data is not valid or misinterpreted in any way.

“The entire thing is biased. To claim that these are “facts” is insane.”

– It is very difficult to be biased in reporting facts, and sorry man, claiming that these aren’t “facts” doesn’t magically make them not-facts. You can selectively choose NOT to report facts you are biased towards/against, but Antigone is reporting demographic and psychographic information about these organizations AS THEY PRESENT THEMSELVES TO THE PUBLIC. And I don’t see Antigone saying that “Pro-life organizations hate women” or anything like that, so no “fact” there.

“Just another feeble lobby in the culture wars.”

HERE’S WHERE YOU’RE MESSING UP:

Problem A: You are calling Antigone’s research fallacious, and in the process of doing so, using fallacies to try and prove your point. Which, if you recall, MAY make your argument PERSUASIVE if people aren’t paying attention, but that doesn’t make it VALID.

Problem B: You are calling Antigone’s research fallacious. It’s research. It’s facts — they’re either true or they’re not. It’s not a line of reasoning. If you want to attack/discount/disprove/disagree with her CONCLUSION or the CONNECTIONS she makes (which on occasion you do, but for the most part you’re just trying to make her and the project and its results sound stupid and incorrect) then that would make sense, because that IS a line of reasoning.

Problem C (andmy biggest problem with you): YOU ARE LAZY. You just make distracting claims and questions about the validity of the researcher, website used as sources, source work, or source data, in a pitiful attempt to make readers doubt what she’s saying — without bothering to actually look at any of the source material or data yourself, or indeed, do anything at all to prove as false or reinterpret her findings (and counting on the fact that readers will be as lazy as you are, or perhaps too busy to look at the source material themselves). You repeatedly ask questions that would have been answered if you had actually given enough of a shit to pull up the pages she links to, wherin your concern is directly addressed. You’re arguing out of your ass without looking at what she’s done or any potential problems with it; you just say “she’s biased, that’s not true, we’ll all go home”, but you don’t even look at her evidence, much less try to prove it wrong. (Let me point out my generosity here — I am assuming your lack of refutation is because you’re LAZY, not because you really DID look and you’re desperately trying to either not confront reality or justify it away.)

CONCLUSION: You’re lazy and you’re not even seriously trying to address her point. You’re not taking yourself seriously, so neither will we.

That was unnecessarily long. I don’t think I’ll do it again. No wonder most people say “Bye little comment troll!” and pat them on the head and send them on their way.

And, why the hate against communication? Combined with my other focus- political science, it is a great for what I’m going into (law school).

The point of the survey is to demonstrate possible motivations for being anti-abortion. I do not discount “pro-life” organization because they are Christian- I discount them because I believe they are wrong.

What other potential criteria would you have me put? When I announced I was going to investigate pro-life groups, where were you then?

And…you know, fuck it. I think Hypnotoad would actually be a better use of comment space.

Ahahahahahahaha.

Thanks for disqualifying yourself immediately. Which community college, by the way?

As for your criteria: what exactly does “ties to a religious organization mean?” What are the standards you use to define and qualify those ties? Is it having religious members? Receiving money from religious people? Religious entities? Moral (ahem) support?

This a a scorecard to underscore a biased POV for biased actors. Any talk of facts is pure dissembling.

And further, what is the point of the survey if not to discount organizations who support an end to abortion by pointing out there religious affiliation?

I notice you left out many other potential criteria here, and have instead focused in on a dim set meant to inflame preconceived notions.

Didn’t they teach you about propaganda in your Media Literacy 101 class?

Parse the language? When it says, fairly clearly, that their beliefs are directly from the Bible, or God, that to me says “Christian”. This isn’t parsing the language- I left organizations that might as well been screaming “I’m Christian, I just couldn’t use the word “Christ”". I left it at WHAT THEY SAID. I think I made it fairly clear in my posts why I put in each group what means what.

I would not, and am not, discounting anything the group has to say because they are Christian, or because they do anything. I am merely pointing out what their beliefs are.

I don’t understand how you could say that these aren’t “facts”. If I go to The National Right to Life Committee has ties to Christian organizations, and is lead by a man, this isn’t “biased”- it says on it’s freaking website.

And who am I to parse language? A college graduate of communication, actually.