I'm sorry the dude is dead, as no one deserves to be shot in a drive-by, but I admit that I laughed when I read the following description of him, as provided by an anti-choice nutter:
He was just a quiet, unassuming, very committed pro-life activist...
People who stand outside high schools, Planned Parenthood offices, and abortion clinics with ginormous, misleading photos of bloody "fetuses" are neither quiet nor unassuming, unless my understanding of those words is wrong. Let's see... Merriam-Webster defines quiet as:
1 a : marked by little or no motion or activity : calm (a quiet sea) b : gentle, easygoing (a quiet temperament) c : not interfered with (quiet reading) d : enjoyed in peace and relaxation (a quiet cup of tea)
2 a : free from noise or uproar : still b : unobtrusive, conservative (quiet clothes)
3 : secluded (a quiet nook)
I suppose he could have been sitting with his loud, disruptive signs amongst a throngs of students and school staff without moving. That would qualify as quiet, then.
How about unassuming? Merriam-Webster defines that as: "not assuming : modest." If imposing one's moral values and beliefs on others is not assuming or modest, then I guess that is an accurate description of the protester, too. Otherwise, not so much.
*Incidentally, there is no evidence that the protester was killed for his opposition to abortion. The killer also shot another person who has nothing to do with abortion, and planned to murder a third but was caught first. I just want to make it clear that there is still no killing on record, ever, of an anti-choice person for his or her views. I wish I could say the same for how the supposedly "pro-life" side treats us. In 2008, over 230 physical acts of violence have been committed by individuals espousing to love and respect life.
I dont' care if it's abortion, politics, religion, sports, or which restaurant is the best, it's sad that anyone uses violence against someone with differing viewpoints. Killing someone who practices or supports abortion is wrong. Even if you are against abortion.
ReplyDeleteAs for the media, they will use whatever language it considers the most provocative to make the story as controversial as possible.
As for your statement, "If imposing one's moral values and beliefs on others is not assuming or modest, then I guess that is an accurate description of the protester, too. Otherwise, not so much".
Perhaps substituting the word "advertising" for "imposing" would be more accurate. Based on the Merriam-Webster definition of "impose", one can argue that impose is the correct verb in that context, but I disagree. Imposing one's moral values and beliefs on others, in my opinion, would mean that one is forcing others to accept those values and beliefs. Which clearly is not the case.
Displaying signs that portray one's values and beliefs, in my opinion, is advertising. Some may buy it, some may not. But it certainly isn't imposing.
Anyone who advertises with big, graphic signs is in no way modest.
ReplyDeleteYes, that I agree with.
ReplyDeleteI think imposing is putting it kindly. There's nothing benign about standing outside Planned Parenthood and essentially humiliating the women who dare to choose. That's the thing about being pro-choice. You can if you want to. Pro-lifers didn't get the memo about free will.
ReplyDelete