FYI: Fitness chain Curves supports pro-life causes

[elfwitch]

from snopes.com
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/curves.asp

Just so you know: Gary Heavin, the founder of the Waco, Texas-based chain of exercise studios called Curves, is a heavy contributor to several organizations allied with Operation Save America, the rather more muscular successor to Operation Rescue, the anti-choice group.

The organizations he funds are spreading the lie that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer. Planned Parenthood says its operations in Texas are being threatened by Heavin-funded clinics based on the old therapeutic model "you must carry your child to term."


I don't know if you boycott or avoid businesses that are known pro-life supporters, but I do. This is just a heads up for any of you that didn't know and are concerned about such things.

[Claire Beth]

1. I wish I had known before I joined! n/t

[Soloflecks]

2. Thanks for the heads up.

Darnit, my son's g/f already joined, too.

[Raster]

3. and I am getting real f'ing tired of "pro-life"...

...these people aren't pro-life, they are ANTI-CHOICE. How many of these hypocrites are FOR the death penalty? How many have guns "just for protection?" How many believe that a fetus is worth more than a mother's life? Take a look at the "law" banning third-trimester abortions--NO PROVISIONS TO SAVE THE MOTHER'S LIFE!!! None!

So tell me, just how fucking pro-life are they? NOT!

[outinforce]

4. How Many People Do YOU Think are

pro-abortion?

Or, if you don't like that question, how many people do you think are pro-choice when it comes to the issue of letting adults choose to use tobacco products, but do all they can to discourage people from smoking?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raster]

7. i don't think there are any persons who are "pro-abortion"...

...and smoking, though vile and addictive, is still legal. I have the right not to smoke if I don't want to. If someone else wants to smoke, great, light up. However, tobacco smoke--even second hand smoke--kills. I don't want to breath it.

[outinforce]

8. Smoking and Abortion

You say that you don't think that there are any persons who are "pro-abortion".

How would you characterize yourself, I wonder?

Would you say that you are anti-abortion?

You describe smoking as being "vile".

Why?

If someone exercises his or her own freedom of choice to smoke, and does so only in the privacy of his or her own home, and harmas no one else, why would you call that practice "vile"?

I might suggest that one way to look at smoking is to say something like, "If you don't want to smoke, then simply don't". Nice litte bumper-sticker slogan that captures the essense to the right of everyone to choose -- to exericse their onw choice -- with regard to smoking, don't you think?

But calling cigarette smoking "vile"?

That seems to me to betray a mindset that is anti-smoking.

Perahs, though, I am wrong.

Would you support any laws that required minors to at least notify their onw parents before they wished to light up a cigarette in the privacy of their own homes? Or would you say that such a law constituted an unreasonable infringment on the right of a minor to exercise his or her choice -- with regard to smoking?

Wouly you oppose efforts to educate people who might be considering smoking as being the efforts of "anti-smoking zealots" to surreptitiously take away the right to choose - to use tobacco products? Or might you oppose such efforts to educate as being "insulting" to adults who are reasonabkly intelligent and do not need anyone "educating" them about the "vile" nature of smoking?

Most people I know are "pro-choice" when it comes to smoking. And most of thpose same people are also "anti-smoking".

I do find it curious that anyone who supports efforts to make abortions rare is always characterized as "anti-choice".

I do not think that those of use who support reasonable efforts to make smoking rare are ever demonized as being "anti-choice".

Calling people who support reasonable efforts to make abortion rare "anti-choice zealots" must have a different motivation, wouldn't you say?

[Raster]

12. I am pro-choice. Loudly and proudly. Government, churches have NO...

...right or moral authority to tell a woman whether she can or can't have a child. Ultimately it is the woman's right to decide, she has the right to MAKE A CHOICE.

As a reformed smoker, my opinion is that smoking is vile. Cigarettes are nothing more than a nicotine delivery device. Cigarettes kill. Period.

on edit: And yes smoking is a choice. Your choice. I support your right to make that choice also.

[sangh0]

13. IMO, people who kill abortionists are NOT reasonable

Calling people who support reasonable efforts to make abortion rare "anti-choice zealots" must have a different motivation, wouldn't you say?

And the anti-choice extremists don'e want to make abortion rare. They want to prohibit it.

[outinforce]

15. Extremists

Using people at the extreme of any issue -- abortion or anything else -- to define people who are not on the extreme of the issue is, I think, a silly thing to do.

"And the anti-choice extremists don'e want to make abortion rare. They want to prohibit it."

I don't know why you posted this.

But here is my comment:

The pro-choice extremists don't want to make abortion rare. They want as many abortions as possible.

Why do you want to talk about people at the extremes?

I don't.

But I will if that is what you'd really like to do.

[sangh0]

17. Yes, anti-abortionists are extremists

which is why anti-choice organizations that do NOT seek to prohibit abortions are few and far between.

Meanwhile, nearly EVERY pro-choice org wants make abortions rare. There are no moderates in the anti-choice movement. People who are moderate on abortion are, by definition, pro-choice

[outinforce]

19. Moderates on Abortion

"People who are moderate on abortion are, by definition, pro-choice"

OK.

I can live with that.

"anti-choice organizations that do NOT seek to prohibit abortions are few and far between

By definition, anti-choice organizations (which I guess means those organizations that wish to prohibit abortions) are organizations that wish to prohibit abortions.

I am missing your point. Perhaps you could share it with me.

WOuld you say that NARAL is anti-abortion? How about PPFA? Are they anti-abortion or not?

I know that they are certainly "pro-choice", so by "anti-abortion" I do not mean that they are anti-choice". When you say that "nearly EVERY pro-choice org wants make abortions rare', do I understand you to be saying that they wish to make abortions themselves rare, and that they would truly be happy if each and every woman -- of her own free will and with no legal penalty -- chose not to have an abortion?

What are you saying, exactly?

[sangh0]

20. What I am saying is

that there is a difference between a real debate about the issue and a dictionary-flame.

[outinforce]

23. Yes. And...?

"What I am saying is that there is a difference between a real debate about the issue and a dictionary-flame."

Yes. I can live with that.

I thought we were having a real debate.

Didn't you?

[sangh0]

24. No, I didn't

I've never had the perception that I've been engaging in a real debate when interacting with you. When I have real debates, my opponent usually makes some points.

[outinforce]

27. Yes

And I guess that when I engage in a real debate (although I really do prefer to call them discussions, since I don't tend to view people who hold positions that are different from mine as being my "opponents"), the person or people with whom I am discussing things not only make their points, they also refrain from mentioning to other people that they should not enter into discussion with me.

[outinforce]

14. Pro-Choice

Thanks for your reply.

I notice that you did not respond to the questions I posed concerning smoking.

Perahps I am mistaken, but I would take from your post that you would support laws requiring parental notification requiring a minor to infrom his or her parents of their decision to "MAKE A CHOICE" to begin smoking.

I hope I do not mischarcterize you when I say that it appears to me that you are pro-choice with regard to smoking, but anti-smoking.

And I think I hear you saying that you are anti-smoking because smoking kills. Period.

Consider this:

There are, I think, a great number of people who, in their heat of hearts, understand what you say with regard to abortion. Of course, the decision to abort a fetus -- a living fetus -- is always the woman's. And there are also a great number of people who no doubt, in their heart of hearts, feel as passionately as you appear to that the government churches, boyfriends, parents, or anyone else has no right or even any moral authority to tell a woman that she can or cannot have a child.

But there are, among those people who feel that way, a number of folks -- I don't really know how many -- who also feel that abortion, like smoking, kills. Period.

And so, those folks, while acknowledging the right of a woman to choose to kill (just as people who acknowledge the right of adults to choose to kill themselves through smoking) arer also against abortion -- and wish to use education, persuasion, and other lawful techniques (which, by the way, do not incluide the cold-blooded murder of abortion providers) to really make abortion as rare as possible.

Those folks are sometimes labeled as misogyinst, anti-choice zealots. And we resent it.

A lot.

[Raster]

16. let's put the smoking issue aside, it's just a smokescreen anyway...

I am PRO-CHOICE. I support the right of a woman--any woman--to have control over her body and reproductive destiny. The opposing view, no matter how presented, is anti-choice. If you don't want to have an abortion, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE. But it is not your right, perogative, higher moral duty or whatever to make that decision for anyone else.

And no, I DO NOT CONSIDER ABORTION MURDER. PERIOD. Thank goodness for Roe v. Wade. Thank God women have a choice and are not considered sub-human and relegated to "brood mare" status.

DON'T LIKE ABORTION, THEN DON'T DO IT.

[sangh0]

18. Yes, smoking is a smoke screen

It's meant to divert attention from the fact that the abortion issue has facets that the smoking issue does not, facets which won't help outinforce's argument (if he ever gets around to stating it while asking leading questions) that pro-choicers are extremists.

[outinforce]

22. What facets?

I am all ears.

Please do share with us all of those facets to the abortion issue that are lacking in the smoking issue.

Since you appear to know my argument so well (a real feat, since, according to you, I have never stated it), you will, I am sure, have the joy and pleasure of demolishing -- for all to see -- my argument once you have posted all of those facets.

I have to leave now, however. And I won't be back until tomorrow morning.

So take you time, sangh0. Give it your best shot.

Oh, and by the way....just so you know. I consider myself a pro-choicer. So why would I ever want to advance an argument that pro-choicers are extremists?

That makes no sense at all.

[sangh0]

25. The facets of the abortion debate

which are different than those in the smoking debate.

And if you're looking for a list, try Google

[outinforce]

28. I Would, But

I would love to do a Google search fot the facets of the abortion debate (and I really do prefer to call it a discussion) which are different from the smoking discussion.

I fear, however, that I might use search terms that are different from the ones you appear to have already used in your research.

Since you first raised the notion that the discussions on abortion and on smoking have different facets, perahps you woul dcare to share with me the search terms you used.

That way, we can discuss the differences (if that is what you are interested in doing) from a common set of reference points.

[outinforce]

21. Many People Who Are Anti-Abortion

Many people who are anti-abortion (which is not the same thing as being "anti-choice") truly feel that abortion kills.

You say that that you do not consider abortion murder.

Fine.

But what do you say to those people who think that abortion kills? Do you simply say to them that they are wrong? If so, what is your response to them if they suggest that you position is also wrong?

And yes, thank goodness that women are not considered subhuman brood mares.

And thank goodness that all adults are not considered children who need to be told not to smoke.

I also am pro-choice. Like you, I also support the right of a woman--any woman--to have control over her body and reproductive destiny.

But I do not understand you when you say "The opposing view, no matter how presented, is anti-choice. If you don't want to have an abortion, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE. But it is not your right, perogative, higher moral duty or whatever to make that decision for anyone else."

Who here is suggesting that?

Not I.

It is like my position with regard to smoking. My position is that if you do not want to smoke, then don't. And it is also my position that it is no one's right, perogative, higher moral duty or whatever to make the decision to smoke or not to smoke for anyone else.

Because I am pr-choice with regard to smoking, I just hate it when I see anyone trying to restrict the right of adults to smoke. At the same time, though, I would be troubled if being pro-choice with regard to smoking meant that I did not have the perogative, right, or duty of any sort to attempt to persuade others that smoking is a vile habit that people should avoid.

[sangh0]

26. More smokescreens

Because I am pr-choice with regard to smoking, I just hate it when I see anyone trying to restrict the right of adults to smoke. At the same time, though, I would be troubled if being pro-choice with regard to smoking meant that I did not have the perogative, right, or duty of any sort to attempt to persuade others that smoking is a vile habit that people should avoid.

You imply that someone believes that it's wrong for anti-abortionists try to convince people to not have abortions. To turn your question back onto yourself, I'll ask:

"Who here is suggesting that?"

The only complaints concerning the anti-abortion extremists are that they are trying to make abortions illegal. No one has complained about their trying to reduce abortions.

[outinforce]

30. I Really Don Not Wish To Cast Stones.

"You imply that someone believes that it's wrong for anti-abortionists try to convince people to not have abortions. To turn your question back onto yourself, I'll ask:

"Who here is suggesting that?""

I really try hard not to put other people who have taken the time to post something here on the spot and to publicly criticize the points they have carefully made.

For that reason, I would prefer not to provide you with the screennames of specific posters whom I feel have made the suggestion that you are objecting to.

I would point out, first of all, that you yourself say, "The only complaints concerning the anti-abortion extremists are that they are trying to make abortions illegal."

I have been quite clear, I think, that I am not someone who falls into the group you call "anti-abortion extremists", by which I think you mean someone who would allow all abortions. And that is NOT what I am discussing here at all. In fact, I think there is a post on this very thread where I make the point that using people at the extreme of any issue -- abortion or anything else -- to define people who are not on the extreme of the issue is, I think, a silly thing to do.

So, if you are looking for my agreement with you, you certainly have it. People who wish to ban all abortions are extremists who do not reprsent my own point of view. And I do, in fact, have a complaint with anyone who would seek to make all abortions illegal through legislation or through Court action. I think such a position is extreme for a number of reasons.

You and I agree, if on nothing else, at least on the point that any person whose "anti-abortion" position means that he or she wishes to prohibit, through legislation or through Court action, all abortions is extreme and their efforts to change the law -- through legislation or Court action -- to forbid all abortions deserve to be opposed most strenuously.

But back to my main point here.

Which is that it does seem to me that there are a fair number of pro-choice people who say, on the one hand, that they are "personally opposed" to abortion or that they are not "pro-abortion" or that they think that abortion is "wrong", but who also say, on the other hand, that they would never want to say anything to suggest to a woman that she should not have an abortion.

That, to me, is very much like someone saying that he or she is "personally opposed" to smoking, or that they themselves would never smoke a cigarette, or that smoking is "wrong", but who would also never say anything to another person to attempt to influence them not to smoke.

I realize that there are differences between smoking and abortion, but if someone says that they are "personally opposed" to abortion or that they themselves would never have an abortion, they certainly must have some reason or some basis for making such a statement.

What I do not understand is how someone could say that they have a personal objection to abortion, and yet not try to influence another person -- through persuasion or education -- not to have an abortion.

Instead, what I see more often is total and complete "neutrality" when it comes to the issue of someone else having an abortion.

I realize as well that this does not describe everyone who deescribes himself or herself as being "pro-choice" (I can describe myself as being "pro-choice", and yet I would not maintain a position of "neutrality" with regard to someone having an abortion>

I do hope this clarifies things for you.

[9215]

9. Just what I was going to say.

:thumbsup:

[noonwitch]

10. I was considering joining the new one they built near me

I'm glad I found this out. Maybe I'll just have to join the city-owned club. It has an indoor pool, anyways.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

11. Before I knew this, I looked at the Curves in my neighborhood

and didn't like three things:

1) They have one circuit training routine, period. It would get old real fast. The muzak on the PA alone would drive me to distraction.

2) They push hard to get you to sign up for a full-year contract. Boredom is likely to make you drop out, so they can keep adding full-year contracts without overcrowding the facility.

3) The hours were inconvenient.

I ended up joining the YWCA, which states that it promotes 1) health and fitness, 2) empowerment of women and girls, 3) early childhood education, and 4) anti-racism.

They allowed me to sign up for a six-month contract, they have a tie-in with my health plan to give reduced premiums to anyone who exercises eight times a month, and they have a wealth of exercise facilities and programs. I'm currently taking water aerobics three times a week and Pilates once a week--all for only slightly more than Curves charges.

[1gobluedem]

29. Thanks for the heads up

I was thinking about joining -- glad I decided to buy a bike instead.