The “pro-choice” censors are at it again
In response to a petition by abortion advocates led by Change.org, Apple has removed an app by the Manhattan Declaration from its store. The Manhattan Declaration is a conservative Christian coalition document. It expresses support for the right to life, but is not a single-issue declaration: it also touches on same-sex marriage (which they oppose), the history of Christianity, and religious freedom jurisprudence. In other words, it’s not the sort of document that SecularProLife.org would produce.
It’s their pro-life stance, though, that got them in trouble:
Change.org sponsored the petition, which, in part, had abortion activists telling Apple that “supporting efforts to restrict choice [abortion] is bad business.”
. . .
The app consists of a four part survey users can take that rates them on how closely their believes are aligned with the values expressed in the Manhattan Declaration. One question asks “Do you believe in protecting life from the moment of conception?” while another asks “Do you support the right of choice regarding abortion?”
Choice to purchase and download an iPhone app asking questions about abortion: No check.
I wish I could say that the hypocrisy was surprising, but we’ve highlighted pro-abortion censorship countless times.
Three additional comments:
1) The petition claims that the Manhattan Declaration app uses “hateful and divisive language.” There is absolutely no basis for that claim, unless they take “hateful” to mean “statements we don’t agree with.”
2) The argument that supporting pro-life efforts is bad for business is a lie based on wishful thinking. In fact, more Americans consider themselves pro-life than pro-choice. Even among self-identified pro-choicers, only a fraction are far gone enough to support censorship.
3) This makes me very glad that I don’t have an iPhone. Apple can count on me never buying one if it continues to capitulate to the demands of an extreme element of the pro-abortion movement.
The assertion that this even constitutes Apple supporting the Pro-life cause is questionable. Couldn't Apple just as easily have apps that take pro-life or pro-choice stances? Do they?
Good question. Can someone who has an iPhone please look and see if apps from the loyal opposition are available?
A Google search reveals that Apple has controversial policies re: sexual content, but political apps are apparently fine.
Censorship is often a way to cover up homicide.
Pro-lifers really don't believe in the free market, do you? Why should Apple lose sales to support your nutty, anti-women, homophobic politics?
Actually, Apple pulled down a satirical political cartoon app because it made fun of public officials, and only put it back once the comics in question won a Pulitzer Prize.
I don't believe in the free market, actually. Personally, I'm a communist.
More to the point, I suppose, it makes clear how hypocritical "Secular Prolife"'s claim is to be "Secular". I believe there's even been claims made on this blog that being prolife doesn't equate to being homophobic!
As the Change.org article makes clear, the objections to the Manhattan Declaration are threefold:
One, it's against choice for women – it's prolife. This makes Secular Prolife wuv it to bits.
Two, it's against equal rights for LGBT people – it's homophobic. Secular Prolife obviously doesn't consider that to be a dealbreaker – after all, prolifers are thoroughly homophobic, as Heather herself documents when talking about her fellow Saturday morning bullies.
Three, the Manhattan Declaration is against separation of church and state. You'd think this would be a dealbreaker for someone who pretends to be an atheist, but obviously not… So is Secular Prolife just plain insincere in claiming to be "secular"? Closet Christian who supports the Manhattan Declaration? My my, the lies and hypocrisy just don't stop!
Pro-lifers are a diverse bunch.
Did you not read the post? The whole point is that many of us (including me) DON'T agree with everything in the Manhattan Declaration, but that doesn't make censorship acceptable.
Nulono: Pro-lifers are a diverse bunch.
Not at all: you're all religious, homophobic, lying misogynists. There may be small differences between you that look vast inside your tiny group, but from the outside, you're all pretty much the same.
The whole point is that many of us (including me) DON'T agree with everything in the Manhattan Declaration
You don't say so. At all.
There's nothing whatsoever in your post that indicates you oppose the homophobia of the Manhattan Declaration, and you fail to mention in any way that it's all about Christians opposed to the separation of church and state.
You're a homophobe, like all prolifers, and plainly not serious about being "secular".
, but that doesn't make censorship acceptable.
"Censorshop"? Riiiight. Obviously, if the Manhattan Declaration isn't available as an iPhone App that's marked 4+ (as it was before the petition – Apple's code for "completely inoffensive") that means it's being censored.
Newsflash: Apple is a private company. It's not obligated to accept every app that any bigoted nutcase develops. If it accepts an app as "inoffensive" and later developments make clear the app is offensive (obviously not to religious homophobes such as yourself!) Apple is not obligated to continue to rate the app "inoffensive" OR to continue selling it at all.
Newsflash: The Manhattan Declaration has not been censored. Your whining that it has been censored is pure nonsense: it's still publicly available anywhere with Internet access.
Some of us agree with the declaration and some of us don't.
And I'm sorry if opposing political viewpoints offend you so much that they must be censored. I, for one, am confident enough in my views that I think they can stand up to opposing opinions.
Nulono: And I'm sorry if opposing political viewpoints offend you so much that they must be censored.
Huh. So if Lifesite News won't print a story about a Christian same-sex couple getting married, they're committing censorship?
When this blog won't write about pro-lifer murders, Secular Prolife is committing censorship?
I, for one, am confident enough in my views that I think they can stand up to opposing opinions.
Excellent. Tell Secular Prolife to stop committing censorship and give me a login to post my views – since refusing to give me a front page post is, in your view, censorship of my opinions, and a sign that Secular Prolife isn't confident enough in their views to let them stand up to mine.
If "refusing to publish an App" is "censorship", in your view, then this very blog is committing extreme censorship by denying me the right to front-page posts here…
Secular Prolife, please note: I do not consider you are committing censorship because I can leave comments only and not make front page posts. It's Nulono's crazy claim that Apple is somehow "censoring" the Manhattan Declaration by declining to publish an iApp which requires people to commit to being anti-human rights for women & gay people: the same argument would mean you're censoring me by not giving me posting access to your blog. Nulono's views, not mine.
Some of us agree with the declaration and some of us don't.
No pro-lifer I've seen or heard of, if they disagree with the Manhattan Declaration, has been brave enough to lift their sheepish little head from the flock and bleat their opposition on a front-page post – because you're all religious, homophobic nutcases who see "nothing hateful" – SP's own words – in opposing the right of same-sex couples to marry.
"Not at all: you're all religious, homophobic, lying misogynists."
*grins*
Yonmei, that's pretty impressive: figuring out the motives of a bunch of people you've never met and, in many cases, never spoken to. I wish I had that superpower.
SPL,
So I googled around a bit and I didn't find anything suggesting the iPhone has apps that would be construed as pro-choice. Moreover I found this link to 20 controversial iPhone Apps that were rejected:
http://www.techradar.com/blogs/article/20-controversial-iphone-apps-616383
While some of these apps are pretty ridiculous, others I thought were relatively mild. For example, Apple initially rejected a NIN app because it linked to songs with "objectionable content" and an app that allowed access to books from the Project Gutenberg library because it included books on Karma Sutra. Apple also rejected an app that allowed you to put your face in the place of a picture of Christ, because it was religiously offensive.
It seems to me that Apple's main concern is certainly not free speech, but rather their reputation among customers. Frankly I don't blame them, although, I do think it's tricky for Apple to have a consistent stance on that front:
http://www.t3.com/features-gallery.html?articleId=9569&pic=/images/aiden_n_knife_2.jpg&id=9
"Seattle's finest gothic punksters Aiden had their Knives app where content ranged from the profane to the religiously offensive, rejected by the Apple iTunes Store regulators. This sparked lead singer William Francis into an open letter tirade to Apple where all manner of expletives were voiced including, 'To celebrate this great occasion, I'm going to visit your iTunes Music Store and download The Slim Shady LP; I really want to hear that song he sings about killing his wife and dumping her body in the ocean. Awesome!!' "
Anyway, as underwhelmed as I am by Yonmei's demeanor, I agree that this is more a reflection of the free market than censorship. It seems to me Apple is just trying to make sure the iPhone is as popular as possible.
Then again, I think you were writing about pro-choice censorship more than Apple censorship, is that right? I definitely understand objecting to your opponents making factually untrue statements, but objecting to them stating their views at all? It is pretty weak, I agree.
*after reading the blog*
Well, in my opinion, I just think it is bad idea. Since I have my Sidekick 2009, I will not buy any political/pro-life/pro-choice app from the Mobile store. Games and apps are suppose for just fun and enjoyable…
Monica: Yonmei, that's pretty impressive: figuring out the motives of a bunch of people you've never met and, in many cases, never spoken to. I wish I had that superpower.
*shrug*
Just as there's no reason to oppose the freedom to marry for same-sex couples that isn't homophobic, there's no reason to oppose a woman's right to choose abortion that isn't misogynistic.
And see the squeeeeeeal of horror that rose up from all these devout pro-lifers because access to a Declaration ending the separation of church and state might have become just a little more limited because Apple won't provide an iApp.
And you think it takes "superpowers" to know that pro-lifers are homophobic, Christian misogynists? No: it just takes the ability to read.
Here's the motivation of most pro-lifers: the right to live. Gasp, what a shocker. It's even right in the name!
We are pro-life because we believe that the right to live is a basic human right possessed by all human beings, and we hold that that right should be respected and protected for all human beings, the unborn included.
Here's the motivation of most pro-lifers: the right to live.
I'll remember my resolution to keep in mind that you're just a kid.
Nulono, women are human too. You may, as an average teenage boy who hasn't even had partner sex yet, not really think about this, but pregnancy is not a magic cloud: a woman who is pregnant uses her body in a way that can risk her health or her life, to bring a fetus from fertilized egg to birth.
Pro-lifers argue that a fetus, because it is human, has a "basic human right" to make use of a woman's body against her will, risking her health or her life. Later, when you're older, you'll hopefully come to understand how profoundly wrong it always is to argue that it's okay to use another person's body against their will, not even if your motivation is to save a life.
This is not about saving or not saving lives. This is about NOT KILLING PEOPLE.
This is not about saving or not saving lives. This is about NOT KILLING PEOPLE.
Doctors murdered by pro-lifers, yeah, right.
Nulono: This is not about saving or not saving lives.
Never were truer words spoken. Being pro-life, as you've just acknowledged, is not about any concern for the health and life of fetuses: it's about making it as difficult and dangerous as possible for women to have abortions. That pro-life campaigning, where successful, trends towards a higher death rates for pregnant women, is not important: what matters to pro-lifers is that women shan't have access to safe, legal abortion.