The "Pro-Life" Movement's Hot Rhetoric and All-Out Lies
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
June 3, 2009 - 7:00am (Print)
One of the most contentious issues now in the news, in the aftermath of the assassination of Dr. George Tiller, is how much moral culpability the anti-choice movement bears for motivating the man who took Dr. Tiller's life. I've had innumerable discussions with folks who are confused about the extremism and anger that characterizes the "right to life" movement, people who mistakenly believe that it's a mostly harmless group of rosary-shuffling grandmothers who, at worst, sit around abortion clinics looking doe-eyed. Or that the picketers at women's clinics could be reasonably described as peaceful. Discrediting these myths isn't fun or easy, but something that fell into my lap in the past week coincidentally turns out to be quite helpful in convincing people that the anti-choice movement, rather than being composed of generally good-hearted folks who just have a thing for fetuses, is in fact composed of hard-hearted sexist ideologues. I've got my hands on a 113-page training manual (PDF) for protesters working for Justice For All, an anti-choice organization that targets college campuses (in keeping with the anti-choice obsession with singling out young, middle class women, whom they wish to preserve as symbols of virginal innocence). Don't worry. My sources got this manual the old-fashioned way, by asking.
As a long-time observer of the anti-choice movement, I thought I'd really seen it all in terms of lying, phony sanctimony, and heated rhetoric that will push anti-choicers to commit violence, but still, reading this manual, titled "Abortion: From Debate To Dialogue," was distressing. The book assumes that its protesters will be sent into a field where they actually have to engage arguments instead of merely yelling abuse and scaring women seeking abortion care. Since my scanner is slow, and time is limited, I didn't turn all 113 pages into a PDF, and since much of it is just Q&A sections and scripture, I didn't feel I had to. But I did grab some interesting pages on arguments to make and rhetorical strategies to use against pro-choicers who try to engage anti-choice activists.
What I first learned was that Justice For All has no problem instructing its activists to use deception to lure people into a conversation. In the section titled "Why Don't You Pass Out Condoms and Promote Birth Control?," the authors tacitly admit that sensible people might be put off by the anti-choice movement's willingness to increase the abortion rate by standing as firmly against contraception, especially the birth control pill, as they do legal abortion. So instead of allowing members to admit their hostility to all forms of contraception, they instruct them to conceal their beliefs until a target has been softened up to hear about their true message--sexual abstinence for all not trying to procreate--through a series of dodgy, misleading arguments, including misinformation about how the birth control pill works.
This tactic is a mainstay of the anti-choice movement: it shows one face to the initiated, and another to the public, especially on the topic of contraception. Once you realize this, the movement's half-hearted denunciations of Dr. Tiller's murder, coupled with the enthusiastic return to calling Dr. Tiller a monster, become all the more chilling.
Throughout the handbook, you find a willingness to ignore or outright deny inconvenient facts. The section "What If The Mother's Life Is In Danger" is particularly outrageous, in light of the fact that it spreads many of the lies that led directly to Dr. Tiller's assassination. Dr. Tiller performed a number of medically indicated late term abortions, and anti-choice attempts to use legal persecution to catch him fudging the ugly realities proved fruitless. Despite this, Justice For All encourages its activists to believe they know better than medical doctors what constitutes a medically necessary abortion, and the handbook claims there is only one instance where a pregnancy can threaten a woman's life. Conveniently, the one dangerous condition they'll admit exists (and consider a justifiable reason for an abortion) happens to be the one that is most likely to threaten her future fertility--the ectopic pregnancy--so they can rest easy knowing that even if a woman's life is saved through abortion, she's paid a steep price. Other dangerous conditions caused by pregnancy--eclampsia and placenta previa being the two biggies--are dismissed as myths used to get away with abortions. Other life-threatening illnesses like cancer are ignored, and it's assumed that a woman's health is certainly an acceptable sacrifice for a pregnancy
This casual disregard for women's lives is acknowledged as a credibility-wrecking problem in another section "Women Will Die in the Back Alleys with Coat Hangers." It's clear that Justice for All activists have convinced themselves that making abortion illegal actually doesn't hinder access to safe abortions (!), but followers are instructed to pretend to concede that illegal abortion is dangerous, to gain credibility. (Which means they have to pretend to believe what they don't, but ironically what they don't believe is true. It's a rabbit hole of deceit and misinformation.) The important thing is creating the illusion of concern for women's lives, apparently, and the manual even offers a small section titled "Sound Bites For Showing Concern," which the activist is supposed to use to soften up the target before comparing an elective abortion (most commonly performed in the first trimester) to shooting a toddler. One does wonder when reading this section if Justice for All offers role-playing classes so you can practice your "concerned" face when someone brings up the problem of women who are mutilated and die due to illegal abortion.
Shocking as all this is, perhaps the most shocking is the section addressing what Justice For All believes about the motivations of doctors who perform and women who obtain abortion, in a section titled "Abortion Isn't Genocide!" Yes, they believe that abortion is genocide, and their rationales for this belief depend on a bunch of out-of-context quotes suggesting that terminating a pregnancy is exactly the same thing as targeting a people for elimination. People commit genocide because they hate the group in question, so the implication (barely implied, and almost directly stated) is that doctors and women who have abortions do so because they hate fetuses. Not because the woman can't go through a pregnancy for a myriad of personal reasons. Not because the doctor is trying to help the woman. No, because pro-choicers hate fetuses.
This is the sort of vicious lie that led to Dr. Tiller's assassination. Realistically speaking, Dr. Tiller was a good man who loved children enough to have four of his own, who joyfully celebrated the pregnancies of women who wanted to be pregnant, who opened his home to women who wished to give their babies up for adoption, and who mourned the loss of very much wanted pregnancies with his patients who had to terminate. In the eyes of his detractors, Dr. Tiller was a genocidal monster who killed fetuses because he hated them.
That is why every person who trots out this nonsense about how abortion is "genocide" played a part in Sunday's tragedy. You paint good, moral, righteous man who lived by his principles, even in the face of grave danger as an irrational monster who gets his kicks by killing babies, and the people who believe you will feel they have to do something. Even if that something is murder.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
Your unfair characterization of the majority of pro-life protesters is completely unfair. I am sure it is more comfortable for you to demonize those who disagree with you. That way it makes it easier to hate them. As a peaceful pro-life person who also happens to be an atheist, I resent your characterization. I am a liberal and a Democrat who also happens to be horrified by late term abortion. I don't believe in the soul. But only a fool can see the pictures of these young children slaughtered and call it anything other than murder. The truth is that there are all types of folks who are opposed to abortion, and not all of them are right wing nutjobs. Do abortion doctors hate fetuses? Of course not. Many, however, simply don't care either way. Dr. Tiller did perform elective abortions. These were done not out of medical necessity, but for the convenience of the mother. To Dr. Tiller, the dollar meant more than anything. Abortion is a lucrative industry. It was unfortunate that he was murdered. I don't condone his slaying. But we shouldn't kid ourselves here--he was no hero.
or the many women he helped? you made the absurd and cold-hearted claim these were "elective" abortions. i find that so repulsive. so many who are anti-abortion are so ignorant about it. that you don't know that these late term abortions are incredibly tragic cases, that to me screams your ignorance.
yeah, and dr. tiller was just soooo only in his profession to make a buck that he put up with being shot before, bomb threats, threats on his family, having to be driven to work in an armored truck, etc. yep. that sounds just like the plastic surgeons in beverly hills who prey on aging women afraid of losing their looks. yep. just in it for the money.
dr. tiller's assassination and the subsequent responses of anti-abortionists has only reinforced to me that anti-abortionists only care for fetuses, zygotes, and embryos. and i really do think it's because caring for some abstract thing based solely on personal religious beliefs is lazy and easy. where's the fight for homeless children? where is the outrage for kids in appalachia who go to bed hungry? where is the outcry for children who are victims of domestic violence? oh, i guess that would take true conviction and actual action and possible sacrifice. kind of like that greedy man, dr. tiller, who continued to help women in need regardless of his personal safety.
In that case, are you out there promoting safer sex practices, protection, and birth control if religion has nothing to do with your pro-life stance? Are you out there protesting war and the death penalty? If "murder" bothers you so much, then what are you doing to stop gang violence? Are you going after drivers who hit and kill cyclists and then flee the scene?
There is a lot of murder to object to in the world.
I'm just saying.
you are utterly ignorant of facts. you are making up lies about late term abortion, so of course i assume you're lying about being liberal.
also, the 'don't condone' weasel words are weak. you don't actually care that he's dead.
also, the 'don't condone' weasel words are weak. you don't actually care that he's dead.
You hate puppies. You may say you don't, but any rational person knows you hate them. You can say whatever you want, but the fact remains - your halfhearted condolences to those families who have lost puppies are merely hiding the self-satisfaction of seeing another young dog dead.
I know this is the case, because I believe it. I may not be able to back it up, but that doesn't matter - your words ring hollow and you hate puppies.
The point is not to demonize pro-lifers. The point is to show what sort of (mis)information is distributed by these particular prolifers --- and to show how the clear (and purposeful) use of that misinformation feeds their cause, and serves to demonize others --- who are operating under a different set of moral values, but with factual, medical backing.
The author of this article isn't making any unfounded claims. These people (in this specific pro-life org) actually distribute this specific training material --- filled with blatant lies. If you feel that fact demonizes this particular pro-life org --- well, these are their own words in their own material.
There are lots of pro-lifers out there who honestly believe that murder is wrong, that abortion is one example of murder, and that it is their moral duty to protest the practice. When a claim is simply made on moral grounds, it doesn't need any factual or medical backing -- but, obviously, this group feels that they need a whole, organized package of lies. These people go out of their way to distort the truth in order to sell their "moral" agenda, and those lies only serve to demonize the people on the other side of this issue. That is the problem, and that problem is actually DOCUMENTED in this article.
WITH YOUR EXPLANATION IT SOUNDS AF IF YOUR FEeLING A LITTLE GUILTY. YOU ARE TO BLAME. ALL OF YOU "prolifers"
What are you so defensive about?
You are the worst kind of antichoicer because you are so dishonest.
Your missive reeks with the worst kind of hypocrisy.
Nothing you have written is believable, including the claim you don't condone Tiller's murder.
Sounds more like you are thrilled.
In medical terminology, all surgeries that are not urgently required within 24hrs of the medical assessment for surgery are "elective". Elective surgeries go on a waiting list to be scheduled according to their urgency category (say within 1 week, within 1 month or within 6 months) while true emergency surgeries jump the scheduled queue for the OR.
The term elective surgery does not mean "unnecessary" or "on a whim", and that has been explained to the heads of anti-legal-abortion groups many times over, yet they still repeat the lie to their followers. So which are you? One of the knowing liars, or merely someone who has believed the lies that you've been told?
Many life-saving operations are categorised as Urgent Elective Surgery because they are not emergency-right-now surgery,. Go get the handbook for any hospital's surgery department that explains how the waiting list works if you don't believe this.
* Organ transplants are scheduled Urgent Elective operations, not emergency-right-now surgery.
* Coronary artery bypass surgery is a scheduled Urgent Elective operation, not an emergency-right-now surgery.
* Surgery to remove cancerous growths is scheduled Urgent Elective surgery, not emergency-right-now surgery.
Late-term abortions of pregnancy are rarely required as emergency-right-now, but they are nearly always classified as Urgent Elective, and in cases where there is an emergency life threat then the surgeon has to be so focussed on saving the mother's life that there is no time to also preserve her future fertility (because these are almost always wanted pregnancies that have gone tragically wrong). Having an Urgent Elective termination performed by a skilled OBGYN allows that bit of extra time to preserve future fertility while aborting the current pregnancy.
Hey, but who wants women who really want a family to still be able to have more children even if one of their pregnancies goes horribly wrong, eh? Obviously not anyone who knowingly lies about what elective surgery truly is.
I smell a smelly troll. Your judgment of Dr. Tiller as not being a hero is subjective. Others who received help and assistance in their time of need would say just the opposite. I think you are here to blame the victim and say that because he performed abortions, he deserved it --- and lying by saying you don't condone his slaying
I do not believe one word of what you have said.
I'm commenting about the article, not the comment ...
I find it interesting that the very people that point the finger at hate are themselves hateful. Why must pro-choicers insist on using terms such as "radical right-wing hate groups," "anti-choicers," or "anti-choice extremists?"
What is so hateful in your minds about people who believe that the fetus in the womb is a living human baby that should be protected at all costs? I'm sure no one reading this would disagree with me that a baby already born should be protected, so why the demonization of those of us who believe the unborn should also be protected?
All the pro-lifers I know are very loving people. These creeps that take matters into their own hands and shoot doctors like Tiller have no place in the pro-life movement, and I think you all know this. However, you like to use this to demonize us. Why?
On another note ... All the pro-lifers I know would never judge a woman/family who had the extremely difficult choice of choosing between the life of the mother and the baby. However, in the United States, these situations are rare. For just about every other situation, adoption is a viable option for those who, for whatever reason, can't support a baby. There are waiting lists to adopt newborns! Why kill them!?!?
What pro-lifers adamently oppose is the wreckless termination of life out of convenience. From the comments made on this blog, it appears that many women who have had experiences with abortions would agree that the baby in the womb IS a baby. It is a life. For those who chose an abortion because it was a matter of life or death, I don't judge you. I don't think anyone in their right minds would. For those of you who regretted having the abortions and are seeking forgiveness, I hope there is some comfort in knowing you are forgiven. God forgives you!
It's my hope that next time, instead of demonizing us, you try talking to us.
"All the pro-lifers I know would never judge a woman/family who had the extremely difficult choice of choosing between the life of the mother and the baby."
Polls consistently show that a substantial number of those who identify themselves as ProLife want to ban ALL abortion including the ones that would save a mother's life. Approximately 10% of the total, about one-third of the ProLife side, are so fanatical that they will let women die.
Instead of protesting how unfair those here are and how we are mischaractering, you might have a conversation with the people on your own side of the discussion about that particular issue. Approximately 650 women die in this country every year from complications of pregnancy even though abortion is available to save others. Banning ALL abortion will increase that mortality rate 2000% by including at a minimum the 180,000 women who have ectopic pregnancies.
I'm not understanding your math of 10% and one-third, but that is beside the point. Again, you need to understand motives. I can easily shoot back and say a majority (if not all) people who are pro-choice would be OK with letting a little unborn baby girl (or boy) die if the mother chooses this as an option.
Please don't try to take the moral high ground on this topic. You can't.
So I guess it's a matter of how you look at things. I would be willing to bet that all those people that say that abortion is unacceptable, even in the case of the life of the mother, are people who themselves would sacrifice themselves for the baby. I've spoken to my own wife about this. Without hesitation, she gave me her opinion before I had a chance to give her mine. She would not want to pro-actively kill the child to save her own life. She would prefer to leave it in the hands of God. You know what? I find that honorable, not detestable.
As you can see, I've already had this discussion with the people on my own side. Others have shared with me opinions similar to that of my wife.
>br>
So it's disingenous to suggest that 10% would "let mother die." It makes it sound like these people are monsters when, in fact, they're not. They're simply God-fearing people who have more faith in what God has done in their lives and can do in their lives than what man tells them.
As far as your statistics of the increased mortality rate if abortions were to be banned, must we go there? Look, I'm pro-life. I believe in doing everything we can to protect the life of the mother AND the baby, but when one looks at the millions of babies who have been aborted (killed) since Roe v. Wade, your argument of saving women's lives falls short and sounds insincere. What about the unborn girls who are aborted? Should we not have done everything we could to save their lives also?
The argument of whether it's a life or not, whether it's a baby or not in the womb is a tireless one, and it has been discussed over and over on these blogs. However, I have not had one pro-choicer tell me the baby or fetus or zygote or whatever you want to call it, isn't alive. Isn't that ultimately what this discussion is about? Saving lives? (Please don't compare a living sperm or unfertilized egg to a fertilized egg. Even though everyone will agree that there is a difference between gametes and fertilized eggs, I had one person on your side try to use this argument to suggest I didn't know the difference. Of course I do, and I would hope that everyone else who has had seventh grade life science would know the difference too.)
Food for thought: If the baby/embryo/fetus/zygote is alive, then what kind of life is it? Is it part of the mother or is it a separate, living being? (By separate, I'm not asking if it can live on it's own. I've already had to deal with this baseless argument as well. If we based human value on the ability to live without the need for support from others, the value of many people in nursing homes, emergency rooms, and, yes, even the children in our own homes, would drop to something sub-human.)
If we become a society that can determine when someone is or isn't human and if we become a society that determines when it is permissible for life to be terminated, we have truly become the most dangerous of societies.
Truthseeker, your post seems to me like a lengthy and pretty damned transparent attempt to justify the belief that, where a woman's life is threatened by pregnancy, she should be left to die. And I love the insistence that various pro-choice arguments are 'baseless', when a whole lot of your opinion seems to be based on your belief in your fictional sky-daddy. If you are credulous, irrational and superstitious enough to base your opinions on a dated and badly written book, there is no point in arguing with you, because one cannot counter irrational, unreasonable beliefs with logic or reason.
I don't believe for a second that you're remotely interested in our answers to your questions, except insofar as you want something against which to argue (and, I suspect, you're looking for a chance to preach religious mumbo-jumbo to the heathens).
Not. Interested.
Emma, You sound so sad and terribly angry.
Do you think so? Because to me she is a calm rational response to someone who sounds irrational, dangerously delusional and, like the rest of you folks, so terribly, terribly brainwashed.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
Where have you been Truthseeker all these years Dangerous!! This world is full of nothing but greedy,violent,sexist,abusive monsters! Killing machines! look at the wars the innocent people killed in wars! Look at the way women and animals are treated as property and with utter disrespect. Rapes murders child molesters, you think it is going to get any better HA think again. Why don't all the pro-life people start fighting for the lives of the ones who are already here. Maybe it would be nice to walk outside in the dark as a single women without an arsenal of weapons !!!!!!!
Truthseeker,
I realize I am a week behind this "conversation" but I wanted to respond anyway. First of all, thank you for spending the time to so eloquently explain your point of view. You made perfect sense and I couldn't agree with you more. Unfortunately, what is common sense to you and I is complete nonsense to most abortion advocates. This is why we need to stop spending our time trying to take the blinders off of their eyes and instead focus on our law makers. At this point in time our country is pretty evenly divided in terms of abortion rights (with pro-life views having a small advantage). WE NEED TO BE THE LOUDER HALF. We need to be relentless in our search and support for pro-life politicians. Of course we should still be vocal about abortion to family, friends, and neighbors but I truly believe we need to start rewarding our state and LOCAL pro-life politicians with massive support (both financial and otherwise). We've already seen even a small bit of pressure work on the President (Notre Dame). While his speech was far from pro-life, it was not nearly as pro-abortion as most abortion advocates had hoped for. The tide is beginning to turn and prayerfully it won't take even one more generation to repeal Roe V Wade completely. Thanks for being a voice.
At me about childbirth have passed perfectly because any doctor around was not, it is simple because they were prompt, all complications were already after I have given birth, but also they have been connected not with that, something not so, and with problems during pregnancy. And these doctors have rescued me, for what I am very grateful to them. As a result at me were that houses wish to receive. While childbirth goes well, full not intervention, and as soon as problems - a full set of medical assistance. An another matter, that knowing about the problems I have gone to maternity home, instead of to the house midwife. And here responsibility only mine.
We do not call ALL pro-life individuals "radical hate groups" etc., only the minority of pro-lifers who ARE. They exist, and one of them murdered Dr. Tiller.
Most pro-lifers are well-meaning, honest people, who disagree with abortion on subjective moral grounds. I happen to agree that abortion is morally wrong, but that outlawing abortion will do no more to stop abortions from happening than the War on Drugs has eliminated drug abuse. This is my position, and I may be wrong. As a pro-choice, anti-abortion individual, I can certainly understand how each side of the debate feels that it has been demonized by the other. After all, I'm one of those anomalies in the middle that extremists on both sides just can't stand.
However, there are those out there who lie about the nature and motives behind abortion in order to further their goals of outlawing abortion. The end does not justify the means. Pro-choicers aren't fetus-hating monsters who love to bathe in the blood of the unborn, and saying they are is a lie. But some (not the majority by any means) pro-lifers deliberately spread lies that dehumanize abortion providers, making them sound as if they despise fetuses, despise human fertility, and want to destroy America's children. Any lie that dehumanizes the opposition is justification to kill by those who believe that lie. By painting Dr. Tiller as a monster, these pro-life extremists (and only the extremists) are guilty of deliberately provoking others to commit acts of terrorism.
Picketing OB/GYN clinics because you're against abortion is OK. Killing abortion providers, or even implying that killing abortion providers is OK, is very, very wrong. That's the difference between a pro-lifer and an anti-choice extremist. One is peaceful, the other violent.
Ok, I'll accept your premise that it is only the EXTREMISTS who painted Dr., Tiller as a monster- a murderer..So if that is the case- we really need to get these EXTREMISTS off the TV - you should condemn the Bill O'Reillys, Anne Counters, Rush Limbaughs and most of the staff at FOX news. They have repeatedly characterized OB/GYN doctors who perform abortions as baby killers, murderers etc.
They are the extremists which we are talking about.
And I'm not even going to mention the Rick Santorums and other public officials, nor the Dobson's, Buchanan's etc.(let allone Randall Terry types)All of whom demonize these doctors as murderers. I definitely think we need to get these people out of public office and out of the pupits from which they spew their extremist hatred.
So if you are serious that this is just a few extremists, I would certainly like to hear a vocal condemnation of these most obvious extremists from the pro-life side.
Let's start with getting O'Reilly and Limbaugh off the air..
Try talking to you, huh?
I went one step further. I am a Planned Parenthood escort who found herself subjected to an unplanned pregnancy. I swallowed my pride and reached out to the pro lifers. I went to their crisis pregnancy centers. Know what I was offered? Diapers, formula, and baby clothes. THE EXACT SAME THINGS PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROGRAMS OFFER! They tried to tell me that my boyfriend should "find a couch to sleep on" (so much for Forgotten Fathers) and my pets (who by the way, my dead mother left in my care) were just to be given to the pound.
A few weeks before, Bella star Eduardo and his manager Leo had come to give a speech with pro lifers. I had briefly talked to him, and he said he would "give his life for me to see the truth" and that he would "do anything to help women choose life." Conveniently, I had gotten the contact info for his manager, Leo and contacted them when I found out I was pregnant. They did nothing. Hollywood stars with tons of money, and even they wouldn't step up. When I later asked other pro lifers why, they said I wasn't deserving of their help. So the fetus had to pay for my sins? It wasn't an individual at THAT point, nope, they saw it as only an extention of me.
I know first hand pro lifers are deceptive liars that will say anything to lure you in. I tried to be friends with several of them, but they quickly cut ties with me when I wouldn't convert to their way of thinking.
Truthseeker said "Why must pro-choicers insist on using terms such as "radical right-wing hate groups," "anti-choicers," or "anti-choice extremists?" What is so hateful in your minds about people who believe that the fetus in the womb is a living human baby that should be protected at all costs?"
You are being disingenuous. If you haven't noticed, Truthseeker, the pro choicers use those terms because it is people on the pro choice side of the argument that have been getting murdered by people on the anti choice side. Can you point to me any incidents where a leader or highly visible "anti-choicer" has been murdered going about his legal business, because of his beliefs? I didn't think so. We don't hate "people who believe that the fetus in the womb is a living human baby that should be protected at all costs". You are entitled to your beliefs. What we hate is that your side is winning through terrorism, because that is the only what you can win. And terrorism usually only inspires more terrorism. And, we use the term "anti choice" because it more accurately reflects their agenda than the self-selected label, "pro-life".
But I couldn't resist commenting. When we use the words "anti-choice" we are not talking about our pro-life neighbor who 'just doesn't think abortion is right,' (for the record, I don't think abortion is a 'good' thing either) we are talking about the people who use abortion as the cover story for what their movement is really about: being against sex performed for any reason other than procreation, and being against women in control of their sexual and reproductive health.
By your assertion that women abort out of 'convenience' I can tell that you are either not a woman, or are ignorant of the standing of living of most women who choose abortion. The "lists" you talk about of people ready and willing to adopt, are primarily middle class Caucasian families who (for the most part) want Caucasian babies. I'm not talking about your friend's sister's friend who adopted an African American child, I am talking about the majority. On the other hand, children of color are much more likely to be homeless or never adopted. The same people who screamed their heads off that these fetuses be allowed to mature into babies and be born, then systematically vote against any kind of health care or welfare systems that might help these children AFTER they born to parents who did not want them (most of the time because they could not afford them.) I can't be 100% sure you are a republican, but most pro-lifers are. As other commenters have said, it blows MY mind how you care about making sure these children are born, but then do nothing for them once they are living. It seems to me that bringing these babies into the world is the priority, regardless of what their standard of living might be.
It's not that we haven't tried speaking to you, we have, we have heard what you have to say, and we realize that it's the kind of propaganda cited in this article, and the lack of knowledge you have shown about why abortions happen at all that have lead to even more violence against people - not fetuses - living, breathing, fully-formed, already existing human beings, and the further persecution of women and their rights.
So my advice to you would be instead of praying for us and about abortion I would look up the facts, and speak to - not preach to - but actually speak to the women who have undergone or need to undergo this procedure. And if you really, truly want to reduce the number of abortions (as we desperately do) get your head out of the sand and join us in advocating for the widespread availability and knowledge of birth control.
Okay, quick question:
As an Atheist, on what basis do you define fetuses as "children"?
I agree, not everyone opposed to abortion is a right-wing lunatic (though, the more violent ones all certainly are, including the ones who stand outside of clinics for basically no other reason than to intimidate women and medical personnel), but I guess I'm just curious about how you're defining your terms here considering the way you've worded your post.
I mean, once you depart from scientific definition and reasoning, you start getting into the metaphysical and the subjective and the spiritual and you might as well go with religious bases for your position. Depending on how you're defining your terms, your perspective on this issue might not be as "Atheist" as you claim, and might be the result of some sort of spirituality, even a personal and individual variety, likely extended from more of a "gut feeling" uncomfortableness with the idea of abortion and less an objective or scientific analysis of all the elements involved.
Sorry, I don't mean to try to tell you that you don't believe what you actually believe, and it's not that there's anything necessarily wrong with believing what you want to for the reasons you have -- it's just that there's kind of a contradiction in the way you came flying in with guns blazing about how secular you are while at the same time using the phrase "these young children slaughtered" and I was wondering if you could clarify.
It's stunning that these "religious" people can't wait to impose their medieval beliefs on those who aren't burdened with superstition and afraid of an invisible man in the sky. The planet is reaching the limits of sustainability and the breeders are determined to keep breeding and to see to it that all forms of birth control are made unavailable. Please, if you must, hold on to your beliefs but PLEASE stop imposing your simplistic mentality on the rest of us.
What bothers me most is Amanda's characterization of all pro life women as hating women and not caring about them. As a woman, I must hate myself if I am a pro lifer. Justice for All is a legitimate organization that does actually engage people in discussion. You may not like their positions, Amanda, but that doesn't mean that they are lying and that doesn't make them responsible for Tiller's murder.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Of course a woman can be a misogynist---she can put women into the category of "bad" women and exempt herself, and even her abortions, because that's different. Clinic workers see this all the time.
"She went through the procedure very smoothly and was discharged with no problems. A quite routine operation. Next morning she was with her mother and several school mates in front of the clinic with the usual anti posters and chants. It appears that she got the abortion she needed and still displayed the appropriate anti views expected of her by her parents, teachers, and peers.....
"The medical director of an Indianapolis clinic recalled one prospective patient who phoned to ask whether the clinic had a back door. He said no. How, she asked, could she get inside without being seen by fellow picketers outside? Pointing out that two orthopedists practiced with him, the doctor told the woman "she could limp and say she was coming to see the orthopods....."
Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is unique -- not like those "other" women -- even though they have abortions for the same sorts of reasons. Anti-choice women often expect special treatment from clinic staff. Some demand an abortion immediately, wanting to skip important preliminaries such as taking a history or waiting for blood test results. Frequently, anti-abortion women will refuse counseling (such women are generally turned away or referred to an outside counselor because counseling at clinics is mandatory). Some women insist on sneaking in the back door and hiding in a room away from other patients. Others refuse to sit in the waiting room with women they call "sluts" and "trash."
I would dispute your definitions of "legitimate" and "discussion". Justice For All can't picket on campuses and harass tender young women whose sexualities they are obessed with unless they are "student" organizations. Of course, a quick perusal of who is picketing on campus any given day shows they aren't student organizations, unless "middle aged white men" are representative of the student body. In the local case of a Justice For All protest, the organization was registeted right before the application for a table was put in. But the protesters---who had few or no students as protesters, though plenty of students protested them---got the best table spot on campus? Why? Well, terrorism works, I guess. No one wants to incur the wrath of right wingers, because that's inviting harassment and vandalism into your life. That's my guess.
Nor are they particularly interested in discussion. I've never in my life seen such extensive political materials to give people to teach them how to advocate for "their" opinions. What's remarkable about reading this is that it's clear that anti-choicers need to spend a lot of time concealing their real views in order to lure people into arguments, where they then try to "trick" their marks into getting confused. This isn't a legitimate debate technique. In fact, it's what people genuinely interested in dialogue call "arguing in bad faith".
Look, let's not play this game. You know and I know that deceit is part of the pro-life M.O. That's why one of the strategies is putting up crisis pregnancy centers that look like clinics but aren't, in order to lure women in. They then pretend they're there to help, and wait until they've got the woman isolated in a room and afraid to hit her with the scary anti-abortion, anti-contraception stuff.
Attempts to dodge responsibility for this show the cowardice that is shot through the mainstream anti-choice movement, right up through Bill O'Reilly's weaseling inability to accept that dedicating 29 segments of his show to calling Dr. Tiller a Nazi who killed babies for fun and profit influences his audience, who he knows for a fact is fond of violence, since there's so much overlap between the anti-choice movement and the gun nut movement. His segment where he dodged responsibility was mostly dedicated to insinuating that Dr. Tiller deserved it.
The assassin was in fact caught vandalizing clinics the day before, but the cops blew it off. Why do you think that is? Well, you know and I know that harassment of patients and vandalism of offices are such routine occurances that the cops can't even be bothered anymore. By helping creating a violent movement that carefully toes the line for the real nutjobs to hang out in, you are responsible.
The other anti-choice activists that were Roeder's friends and colleagues knew he was violent, but they didn't do anything about it. Why not? Well, I suspect it's that they're so used to men who get off on violent talk, who commit petty acts of violence, and who talk about the need to eliminate doctors that he didn't stand out as noteworthy.
Playing like this is an isolated event won't work. This isn't the first time someone tried to kill a doctor. This isn't the first time someone tried to kill this specific doctor.
I'm a pro-choice gun nut.
Which is weird to say because I've never owned a firearm in my life. But I'm in whole-hearted agreement with a majority of my fellow Americans that every woman on earth should armed and trained in how to shoot.
I'm an advocate of gun ownership rights. I'm also a staunch defender of your right to decide if you want to keep your baby or not.
We may need those guns someday against a too-powerful church.
females contribute to sexism all the time, to get into the boys club. you don't object to lying to women and PRETENDING to care? that tells us a lot about you.
You know, I perhaps will agree with you. For too paid attention, that the lonely woman transfers absence of the partner (not only, it is even not so much in the sexual plan), than the man and, moreover, looks socially defective not only in the opinion of the married girlfriends, but also in the opinion of own more difficultly (if certainly is fair in them will glance... As a whole, full discrimination of men to a sexual sign)))
As a woman, I must hate myself if I am a pro lifer.
No you don't. you just have to hate, demean and envy other women,
The notion that many women don't hate other women is easily debunked by anyone even mildly observant, had spent any time around conservative women or had even read or listened to what you folks have to say.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
I figure that any woman who thinks she should be in the position to force another woman to reproduce, can't be much of a feminist.
Frankly she isn't qualified to make those decisions for anyone else...
but you will note these women get all offended when they have to deal with who exactly they are affiliated with.
Self determination is pretty basic, and if you don't support it for other women, honey, you ain't a feminist.
I agree with you.
Anti-choice women like yourself lie, manipulate, and try to control not only women, but the dialog about what women can do with their bodies. Women like yourself do not care about other women,( you have proven that time and time again, Progo, with your "my experiences are the only ones that matter" arrogant attitude that you have shown when you have posted on many of these boards and that I, and many others, have called you out on.) They and YOU are selfish, and have grandoise delusions and seem to live under some false, silly notion that if they weren't born, and their parent had chosen to have an abortion, the world would be so much worse off.
Anonymous, you are being dishonest. George Tiller saved women's lives (because unless you're living in fantasy land, pregnancies sometimes do go wrong, and sometimes women die from it). He survived one shooting, was the subject of threats for years, and was eventually murdered. It wasn't as if he was living a fabulously safe existence as a result of the work he did.
And, um, the angry zealot? That would be the guy who just murdered a doctor. As far as I'm aware, Amanda isn't running around shooting people for disagreeing with her; it's the 'pro-life' people who are into that.
ETA: According to this article, Dr Tiller took patients who couldn't pay, so the claim that he was in it for the money is a vicious lie.
Why aren't the PDFs of these pages posted? If the arguments are so deceptive and lie-filled, why not put them on display for all to see?
JivinJ -
The PDF of the document in question is now linked in Amanda's post, and here (PDF) as well. My apologies for not having it up until now.
Brady Swenson, RH Reality Check
The PDF is rather large, and it was bugging me, so I made a compressed version for you, if you're interested. (It's 40x smaller!)
I've transferred the compressed PDF to our site and replaced the links in the post and my comment above to point to this much smaller version of the handbook.
Thanks so much!
Brady
Come on Brady--you say you posted the manual referred to in the article, but fully 100 pages of it aren't there. So much for my right to decide what it means for myself, huh?
Elective abortion ensures the equality of sexual freedom between women and men. There is no sacrifice too small in the pursuit of that equality. Obviously, any threat to reduce hard-won equal rights is repulsively abhorrent to feminists and they will fight with unbridled viciousness to keep those rights, no matter the cost or criticism.
Yes, those heinous women, thinking they ought to have rights, as if they were men or something. Sexual freedom and equality? The horror? What happened to the good old days when a woman took what she got and liked it? It just makes you want to spend your life under your bed, quaking in fear.
Amanda is calling anti-choicers on their dishonest rhetoric, and that is "unbridled viciousness". Anti-choicers call for the death of abortion providers and one actually went through with assassinating Dr. Tiller... what's that to you, then? Polite disagreement?
Insofar as it's actually possible to take someone who derides sexual freedom seriously, of course.
Mavrik does make a point. That is, if pro choice folks merely state the truth: that the right to an abortion is about women being equally free as men to have sex (that is with equal consequences) then the anti-choicers will have a very difficult time voicing appropriate opposition.
Men don't get pregnant. Nothing equal about that!!
And really, sexual freedom for women is just part and parcel of freedom in total. But for anti-choicers, they get stuck on the sex part, and they freak out and can't get past it. To important facts like sex is a part of human nature, people have always had it, women had it even when the chance of dying from it was so high, and so fertility control is just an important medical advancement.
It's fascinating to me that anti-choicers think nature is a trump card. I doubt they're willing to put that one to the test, and give up not just antibiotics, but allergy medicine, air conditioning, and pasteruized food---and just take their chances in a world with no medical care, no basic improvements to shelter, and a diet consisting solely of what they can grow on their own land or hunt. They wouldn't last a week.
Abortion enables women to be as equal as possible to men when it comes to potential consequences associated with sex. Women have a right to engage in sex since men have a right to engage in it. Since women get pregnant and men do not, then abortion is necessary to compensate for the inequality of consequences.
Now, what abortion opponent could argue against that?
Sex is a part of life, always has been and always will be. People find it a joy, a comfort, a biological urge. Unfortunately, like many other biological functions that give us joy and pleasure, it can have problematic consequences. But it is a part of life. Inseparable. Not going away, no matter how hard you wish.
Unwanted or dangerous pregnancy, STDs---these are unfortunate consequences of life. Thank goodness for medical science! We don't have to suffer and die as much just because life is dangerous. We can go outside without having allergy attacks if we take our pills. We can have contact with other people without dying of contagion. Don't you agree that this is wonderful? Life is better if you can live it! Go outside, have friends, have a sex life, even!
But for some reason, when it comes to women, this obvious reality---that medical science is for saving and improving the quality of life---becomes controversial. I wonder why that might be? It could have something to do with sexism, I'd bet.
An unwanted pregnancy/child is a consequence that must be optionable if we are to achieve true sexual equality with men. Anti choicers want to use children to undermine equality and 40 years of hard-won gains.
Why does everyone in this blog think that a pregnancy is a damper on life rather than thinking that the baby is a gift? I have never met any woman who decided to have her child look at them and say, 'I should have aborted you'. Why? Because they love them and if these women who choose to have an abortion would give their child life, they would feel that love and adoration that all mothers feel.
I understand that there are pregnancies in which the child may be not well or deformed but again, why kill it? Give it a chance to fulfill your life!
Another question I have for the sake of argument is why choose abortion? Why not look into adoption and give the child, yes a child, not a just a fetus, the chance to live happily even if they are not with their biological parents?
Fulfilling your life is a hell of a burden to place on someone before they're even born. Typical anti-choice - unthinking and emotional rhetoric that completely erases the pregnant woman's wishes and experiences in favor of creepy anthropomorphic fetuses and the somewhat bizarre notion that if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she has no other option than carry to term to provide puppies and rainbows for someone else. I suppose this all ties into the old canard that women are supposed to be inherently selfless, caring and always sacrificing and thinking for themselves is selfish and awful.
I have met women who decided to have a child and later said they regret the choice though they love the individual who resulted. This group includes women who became pregnant intentionally. I assume that some women who abandon their babies or put them up for adoption would also fit into this category. As a worker with at-risk children, I will never forget one mother who physically cringed when her children approached. Bet she regretted having children - even if she wouldn't admit it.
I have met a woman who believes she should have aborted her child. The woman is my mother. The child is me. My mother loves me, but I did ruin her life.
"I have never met any woman who decided to have her child look at them and say, 'I should have aborted you'. Why? Because they love them and if these women who choose to have an abortion would give their child life, they would feel that love and adoration that all mothers feel."
Obviously you have not met my mother. As a Conservatard, she decided she couldn't abort me, and she hates me. She sees me as having ruined her life (causing her to feel as if she had to marry my father, nearly dying during childbirth, having to give up her career in the military, etc).
"I understand that there are pregnancies in which the child may be not well or deformed but again, why kill it? Give it a chance to fulfill your life!"
Yes, because severely deformed and retarded children are such a joy. This argument is stupid.
"Another question I have for the sake of argument is why choose abortion? Why not look into adoption and give the child, yes a child, not a just a fetus, the chance to live happily even if they are not with their biological parents?"
Two reasons for this one:
First, adoption is not a nice thing. Even when it goes incredibly well, it is not a nice thing. My exgirlfriend was adopted as a baby from China by the nicest American parents. She suffers. She wonders why it was so easy to just get rid of her. She feels an incredible need to be "good enough" for her adoptive parents because disappointing them in any way would simply destroy her.
Second, and we'll use me as an example here, maybe I don't want to be pregnant. I will accept that a fetus is a person. I'm a Quaker, so I'm mildly religious. I believe in souls. HOWEVER. I do NOT believe that one person has the right to hijack the organs of another. It is illegal to steal your kidney, even if I need it to live, isn't it? Therefore, just because a person needs my uterus to live does NOT give it the right to live inside of my body. This differs from an already born child in that the child is not physically leeching off of my body. A child can be given away. A fetus cannot be given away without removing it from the body. If removing it from my body will kill it, then so be it. That's all there is to it.
In closing: personhood is not the issue like anti-choicers think it is. A woman's right to bodily autonomy is the issue.
Having a child CAN be a gift--if the mother wants it. It can also be a burden, a terrible burden that greatly affects the life of the mother and her family.
The key thing to remember with pro-choicers is the word 'choice'. I don't want women to have abortions, any more than you do. I wish no woman was ever in the position that she felt that abortion was the best option for her. But that is what some women choose, and I support them in that, as much as I support women who decide to have children. We're not all ready or able to be mothers.
No one should ever be forced into something they don't want to do. I would never force a woman to have an abortion, regardless of how unwise I think it is for her to have a child--I merely ask that you never force a woman to give birth.
(As for the adoption question, all I'll say is that there's plenty of women and couples that turn to fertility treatments before adoption. Whether or not that should be the case, it is reality.)
The kind who think women are evil whores if they have sex for any reason besides helping their husband produce a baby in the missionary position, that's who.
If the "Pro-Life" movement actually cared about preventing abortion, they'd be handing out free condoms, not promoting that "abstinence-only" bull.
Abortion enables women to be as equal as possible to men when it comes to potential consequences associated with sex. Women have a right to engage in sex since men have a right to engage in it. Since women get pregnant and men do not, then abortion is necessary to compensate for the inequality of consequences.
Now, what abortion opponent could argue against that?
Speaking only for myself, I think you really hate the idea that women should have total control over their bodies and their reproductive choices. If men could get pregnant and were subjected to the same risks, I bet we would never have any conversations at all about whether abortion was right or wrong.
I will fight YOUR unbridled viciousness with steely resolve. My body is mine and you have no rights over it whatsoever. My body, my choices.
My money. My choices. Abort or unilaterally finance that parasite for the next 20 years.
Speaking only for myself, I think you really hate the idea that women should have total control over their bodies and their reproductive choices. If men could get pregnant and were subjected to the same risks, I bet we would never have any conversations at all about whether abortion was right or wrong. I will fight YOUR unbridled viciousness with steely resolve. My body is mine and you have no rights over it whatsoever. My body, my choices.
Only in countries where those rights are recognized.
In other countries, men with badges and guns have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies.
It frustrates me more than I can say to hear people assume that the women that came to Dr Tiller were going their out of convenience, or that Dr Tiller was enticing them to come. When you had no one else to turn to, Dr Tiller was there. No one who went to Dr Tiller was forced to go to him. Until someone is in the situation that the women he helped, at great personal risk, they do not know and cannot understand how important the work and compassion he provided were. No woman wants to hear that their child is doomed to live a life full of pain, to be a vegtable, to be eaten alive by cancer while in the womb. No mother wants to hear that her 11 year-old was raped and too young to understand what pregnancy means.
The pro-choice movement is about being pro-abortion, or pro-death. No one wants abortion. The pro-choice movement is about making sure that when a woman has to make that decision that she has somewhere safe to go. Somewhere that she can receive quality care, without judgement. So many women die everyday from difficulties due to pregnancy. I personally have blood clots, which are dangerous enough on their own. Almost 80% of all maternal deaths are caused by blood clots, formed during and after pregnancy. Is my life worth the life of a child that I might never be able to carry to term?
It angers me so much when I hear of women who come to receive the same services that they condemn for others. What makes them different? What makes them special? Why is it ok for them to do what is so wrong for others? What makes their reason for abortion better and more noble than mine? But while I may fume and seethe about their hypocrisy, I would never turn them away or tell them that this is a choice that they cannot make, that this choice that they would make for others is not their's to make.
I think it's a contentious issue, and one that will not be solved overnight. I mean you have half the world saying abortion should be outlawed and the other half saying it should be written into law. Personally i think it's the choice of the woman whether she has an abortion or not...there are so many circumstances that can make someone chose that desision, and i don't think anyone has the right to influence them otherwise.
Marcotte seems shocked that a protest group would use the tactics of other protest groups--like those organized by Saul Alinsky. What did she expect? That anti-abortion protester wouldn't have training manuals and game plans, and be organized, just like those groups of whom she approves?
"it shows one face to the initiated, and another to the public, "
That's right out of Alinsky.
Rules for Radicals isn't limited just to those of whom Amanda likes.
That perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"
The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.
The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."
Yes, I think you can shut up now, with your dismissive bullcrap.
Seems to be getting lost. At least one anti-choice organization has been caught flat-out lying. They are in no way pro-life, because the mother's life is of no concern to them. Only their radical anti-abortion agenda matters.
The ends justifies the means argument was used by Dick Cheney too. Do you really want to go there?
It's so utterly sad to read so many posts talking about abortion as something that effects only women and their rights. What about the baby? Who will speak for a child who is tortured and murdered in the very same place where he/she should feel safest? And if pro-death people are so concerned about the rights of women, how about the millions of little girls butchered? Who speaks for THEIR rights?
It's funny that you are so outraged by the "lies and deceptions" of the pro-lifers when abortion is based on a big, fat lie--that a fetus is not a baby.
Abortion is not about religion or politics but about human decency. Take a good look at the photos of aborted children. THAT is your choice.
And it is not about anyone's rights, as it were. It is about the hellbent obsessive desire among mainly middle class white American women to claim equality in all spheres with American men who are viewed (by these women) as an organized group of selfish power mongers. Take your pick: pay equality, sexual promiscuity equality, household chores equality, and whatever the equality gripe du jour happens to be. Feminists are masters at propaganda, rhetoric, and molding terminology in order to achieve their goals. In the absence of opposition to abortion, the feminists would have no reason to state that the aborted material is not a baby or a life or even a child.
Translation: "HOW DARE THOSE WOMEN TRY TO BE EQUAL TO THEIR MANLY MASTERS!".
You can shut the hell up now, Texpat.
That seems to be the main focus here. If you don't agree, we'll just call you names and pretend to know your motivation. In addition, we'll call the baby anything other than a baby and besides it'a a parasite. What callous, selfish, delusional rationalization occurs here. I'm sorry that Tiller was killed. I'm sorry that people are killed in war, traffic accidents and being punished for crimes. There have been five abortionists killed by sick, derranged individuals since Roe. About one per decade. Hardly justification for labeling the Pro-Life movement as terrorists. Show some respect for those who feel as deeply about their beliefs as you do about yours.
Fact, Tiller would abort a baby for any reason up until the moment of birth. What he did was not heroic.
You come back as a woman. You have proven to be what you think women call men who aren't compliant in their much deserved push for equal rights. You ARE a selfish power monger, just by the lack of virtue and the insecurity shown in your mysogonist post. You will see it is about having equal rights, which are guarenteed to women under the constitution of the United States, and that we have yet to see come to fruition, thanks to the likes of people like YOU. I hope that you come back as a poor single woman who is pregnant with few options, (in another country, because this one will finally have equal rights and still have choice, thanks to women like me who fight on a daily basis to keep that right, and a young pro-choice majority who will not let your kind EVER win elections again.) then maybe, as the rock group EVERLAST puts it so eloquently: "God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes, cause then you might really know what it's like, to have to choose."
The anti-abortion terror-apologizers seek to grant unborn human beings special rights that no born human being has. How is that not discrimination against women? The only way I would ever believe that forced-gestation proponents actually care about all life is the day they advocate for mandatory blood, bone marrow, kidney, and partial liver donations from each and every born human being.
But that's never the case. This so-called "undeniable right to life" only ever applies to pregnant women in regard to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. No born human being has any sort of right to demand the use of another born person's body even if they would die without it, even if that other human being caused the condition for which they now need another person's bodily tissues to stay alive.
You may certainly decry my or any woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy. You may think us to be depraved, selfish assholes of the highest order. But you have absolutely no right to make us reproductive slaves of the state unless you are willing to address the fact that no born human being has any sort of right to commandeer another's body for their use, even to save their lives. Which none of you do, so I can only conclude that your vile ideology is fueled by misogyny rather than Respect for LifeTM.
Reproductive slaves of the state???? Come on!!! Women were created to carry another life!
And there it is - women are Made By Sky-Fairy to Make Babies.
There's the crux of the whole thing - to them, it's all about how women are just walking incubators.
You can shut up now, you child.
If you actually believed a word of the religious crap you've obviously swallowed, you'd be out shovelling shit in a field and working by the sweat of your brow, as Old Testament god said you should do. If you want to get Biblical about this, man was created to work. Or is biological determinism not okay when it applies to you?
Yes, we were created to carry another being, but that does NOT mean that we HAVE to.
Until you start from a factual standpoint, you have no right to speak.
Oh, and about those "pictures of aborted children"? They're pictures of miscarriages - the kind that can damage and kill women because people like you refuse to allow life-saving medical procedures. Congratulations on being caught in yet another anti-woman lie, scumbag.
Sooner or later, this country will finally reject your kind. That day will be a happy one.
Amen!
Pictures of miscarriages, huh? The majority of those pictures are showing babies who are miscarried alright. For partial birth abortions, they either stick a large needle in their heart to kill them before they are delivered or they deliver everything but the babies head, stick a sharp scissor-like tool into the back of the baby's head and either cut the spinal cord or suck the brains out until the baby is dead. All the while, the baby is feeling every bit of the doctor's torture. They do have all working functions at that time except lungs depending on when the abortion is done. Nerves are fully developed.
And for the early trimester abortions, the most used procedure, is dismembering their tiny bodies by using a powerful vaccuum. Again, they can feel that.
Miscarriages? Sure, but not by natural causes. Murder is more like it. If you stop a beating heart, a living thing, you killed something. It didn't miscarry!
And another thing, there is no reason to be mean to another person for their beliefs. I'm sure you can find a way to be critical for your cause, without name calling.
There you go lying yet again, pro-terrorist. It's laughable that you have the nerve to refer to pro-choicers as "pro-death." My sides are splitting.
The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester when there really isn't a body to butcher. And when it certainly has not a lick of the neural capacity necessary to think, much less actually feel anything. First trimester abortions are performed via suction and the embryonic sac is pulled out intact. That is how they know that the abortion has been successful.
And no, zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not babies. They are potential babies. There is still a lot of work that a woman's body needs to do to create that new human being. A woman's body can be considered a baby-making machine. Forced-birthers believe that machinery (aka the woman's body) belongs to the government or to their sadistic sky-daddy, while pro-choicers understand that in a free society, a woman's body belongs to her and her alone. Pro-choice is about human decency, about regarding women as full-fledged persons with the right to decide what happens to their bodies, direct the course of their own lives. Forced gestation, no matter how much "progressive" or "feminist" forced-birthers like to spin it, is misogyny of the vilest sort.
they use the term baby, even though a fetus or zygote is nowhere near a baby. Anti-choicers are fundamentally dishonest, because zygotes and early fetusues look NOTHING like a baby, and more like something out of a horror show. They think that they can twist definitions and make up their own languge to win converts, and it works with some gullible, easily led people. A baby as defined by science is a human being that has been fully gestated to where it could live in it's own, and is sanctioned by the world by way of a birth certificate that certifies it as an equal and seperate person. A baby is when birth seperates it from the cord that attatches it to it's mother. Until then, a fetus or zygote is a part of a WOMAN'S body, and can be removed without ever having known life. Life is what is has when it exists in the REAL outside world, NOT in a woman's body. Cancer cells, sperm cells, and tumors are considered alive too, in a sense, but also cannot exist independently outside of a person's body.
So what if it is Life or a Baby by scientific definition or looks like a human or waves its hand at you two weeks into pregnancy. Do you think knowing or accepting that is going to stop a woman from choosing to have an abortion? NOT. AT. ALL.
Castellina,
Do you believe that babies have a right to be born healthy into safe homes? Probably not. All you care about it that they are born. You don't care if they are born addicted to drugs, placed in foster homes, with crippling defects. You don't care Thanks again for reminding why I'm proud to be Pro-Choice.
Leila, I think your ideology concerning "the right to be born healthy into safe homes," is just another outgrowth of the "unfit vs. the fit," idea in terms of childbirth. What do you is a crippling defect? That in itself is subjective. What is a "safe home"? is it a two parent household? A household in a community with a low crime rate? A household where neither parent has a drug problem? A household that is big enough to provide every child with his or her own bedroom? All of those ideas are subjective and really just serve to justify abortion on the pseudo grounds of doing the fetus/future baby a favor. It's not.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Catellina - If you have half a brain, which I doubt, you would know that countries with legal abortion have the lowest abortion rates and countries where abortion is illegal not only have the highest rates of abortion, but also thousands of women die in the process. You hate women and want to increase the number of abortions. Gotta love right-wing anti-choice logic.
You know, Amanda, I guess I can blame you if Bill O'Reilly, or Sarah Palin, or any other conservative pundit or politician is murdered, since you call all of us who're pro life mysogynists. So, if some crazed pro choice person EVER goes and does something like that, I'm going to blame you. Okay?
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
You are called "misogynists" because that is the only description befitting proponents of laws that would force women to relinquish control over their own bodies to the state.
Do you honestly believe that pushing back against anti-abortion
rhetoric and making death threats are equivalent? I will have to inform
you that such an assertion is patently false. When have pro-choicers EVER advocated for killing forced-birthers? Oh, that's right...They never have. On the contrary, "pro-lifers" publish names of doctors and clinic workers with gun crosshairs and outright "kill the baby murderer" lists.
Unfortunately, such cognitive dissonance is no less than I expect from forced-birthers.
You know
and everyone else here knows
that women who don't support self determination for other women...
who positions oneself as someone who would force other women to reproduce
isn't much of feminist.
And being nailed as the liar you are, despite your need for attention and drama, isn't the same as wishing you dead.
Yes, because calling you idiots idiots is exactly the same as O'Loofah openly advocating murder.
Ignorant child. You will be silent from here on, do you understand?
Moreover, according to your logic, Amanda, the Anti War Movement is DEFINITELY responsible for the murder of Private William Long, who was recently murdered at an army recruiting station. Oh, but that cause is just, in your mind, isn't it? Trying to save what pro lifers regard as unborn babies and help pregnant women make other choices besides abortion, well, that just sucks, according to you. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and the American people aren't stupid. We see these kinds of double standards, and we don't like it.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Speaking for ALL American people. Who the hell left you in charge to speak for all of us? It is your very arrogance to think that you can do that that makes you laughable. Just like you thought that you could speak for all adopted people, and angered many on the adoption boards, many of whom said that they had rather not been born than had been adopted, and gave very convincing reasons why. (abuse, feeling rejected by their biological parents, not able to access their health histories, etc. etc.) You arrogantly tried to downplay their feelings and act as if your adoption experience was the only right one, and that your feelings of being adopted were the only ones that mattered. Most people, one skewed poll or not, are pro-choice. That is why we have a pro-choice president who got a mandate. 68% in that very same poll that you love to cite (and most other polls prove wrong regarding more anti-choice vs pro-choice) said that choice should be legal. Maybe some people in that poll had born named sanctioned by a birth certificate young women in their families who died when abortion was illegal at the hands of a back alley butcher who was not a real medical doctor. In any case, you cannot and do not speak for the American people. You speak for a bunch of mysogonist crazies who have no right to intefere in the choices that women make for themselves and their lives for whatever reasons that do not need to be approved of by them or YOU. Abortion will remain legal, or women will be second class citizens subject to interference in every aspect of their pregnancies and lives. Maybe YOU want that, but I and the majority of American people do not.
When I say that "the american people recognize the double standard and we don't like it," I am talking about people that I know, both pro choice and pro life, who have viewed this particular site and consider it radical, or simply do not accept the argument that pro lifers are automatically mysogynist, misanthropic jerks. And, they don't like it when people deliberately drive wedges between the two camps by characterizing the opposition in such ways. The people who I hang out with do not call pro lifers mysogynists or pro choicers baby killers, we have more respect for others than that. As to the adoption vs. abortion thread, about four people said that they would rather have been aborted. That compared to the majority of adopted people I've spoken to, who are glad to be here and not aborted.
It isn't "compelling" to go around hating oneself because of the being adopted, JAN. You wouldn't know about that, either, since you don't have experience with this issue, so maybe you shouldn't sit on your high horse and look down on my perspective, which has a lot more credibility than yours.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
When I say that "the american people recognize the double standard and
we don't like it," I am talking about people that I know, both pro
choice and pro life, who have viewed this particular site and consider
it radical, or simply do not accept the argument that pro lifers are
automatically mysogynist, misanthropic jerks.
Sadly, 'People Progo knows' does NOT equal 'the American people' in anyone's mind but your own.
You've been consistently disrespectful towards the women here. You have picked fights, trolled, mocked, needled and insulted others on a daily basis. It's your hobby.
The notion (and one you have often expressed) that one has the right/obligation to force a woman to carry to term a child she does not want is inherently misogynistic and profoundly disrespectful on every possible level. There's just no way around that
so maybe you shouldn't sit on your high horse and look down on my perspective, which has a lot more credibility than yours.
I've found Jan to be honest and reliable.
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
Dr Warren Hern, MD
JAN shouldn't run around assuming that she can speak about adoption experiences if she feels that I, an adoptee, shouldn't be speaking to it in terms of expressing my opinion on the abortion vs. adoption controversy, either. Since she seems to feel that any answer to the contention that it would be better to be aborted than adopted is disrespectful to the adoptee expressing that opinion, than she is disrespecting me and that adoptee by expressing hers, since she certainly doesn't know what it's like to be an adoptee. I'm just using her logic here. Of course you find JAN to be honest and reliable-you agree with her!
I have been no more disrespectful to the women here than people have been to me, if that's how we're going to regard contentious discourse with one another.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
For sticking up for me. I also want to say that I love your quote by Dr. Warren Hern, too. : )
but "about" 4 works well with your other ways of showing complete dishonesty. Many more than four, go back and count them, as their opinions matter TOO. I have a lot of adopted friends, and this kind of thinking (that they wish that they hadn't been born only to be given away) is NOT only on those boards it is shared by some other adoptees as well. You were adopted, but have you ever had an abortion? Neither have I, but by your definition, neither of us should be talking about this subject and it should be left for discussion only to women who have experienced it. Yes, women have had abortions, and the majority who have not regretted it and have moved on with their lives, well I discuss it to support and validate their choices. You don't. You act like you live to be a know it all, ANTI-woman advocate, when it comes to choice you want to force women to carry pregnancies that they don't want, and have no choice but to risk their life and health to not have it.(when your kind makes it illegal again- isn't that your GOAL?) All probably because you were adopted. And the world couldn't have lived without you, right??
"God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in her shoes, cause then you really might know what it's like, to have to choose." EVERLAST
Actually, Jan, I'm using YOUR logic in regard to whether people should speak to these issues. You seem to feel that since I am not the person who wishes she was aborted, I have no right to contradict or attempt to refute the logic of their position. I'm just asking you to apply your position on who should make certain statements equally, not endorsing your view of how discourse should be conducted.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Moreover, according to your logic, Amanda, the Anti War Movement is DEFINITELY responsible for the murder of Private William Long, who was recently murdered at an army recruiting station.
Not even close. There has not been a SINGLE anti-war activist who has called for the slaughter of soldiers or any other person who disagrees with them. Not one. There has not been a single anti-war activist who has stated "well, I don't condone killing, but as a soldier, he really was asking for it and I'm really not sorry he's dead," unlike nearly ALL "pro-lifers" in regard to the assassination of Dr. Tiller. The sole exception to this is Marysia.
There has also not been a single environmentalist or environmentalist organization who in any way, shape, or form has expressed tacit agreement with the actions of the Unabomber. Not one.
Again, the same absolutely cannot be said of "pro-lifers" and their mainstream organizations. You, my dear, are comparing apples to oranges. And I assert that the American people aren't stupid enough to fall for your nonsensical justifications and retarded assertions.
There has not been a SINGLE anti-war activist who has called for the slaughter of soldiers or any other person who disagrees with them.
Wrong. Remember when Ward Churchill called for the fragging of U.S. troops. That's one I can think of off the top of my head. It inconceivable you think its never ever happened.
There has not been a single anti-war activist who has stated "well, I don't condone killing, but as a soldier, he really was asking for it and I'm really not sorry he's dead," unlike nearly ALL "pro-lifers" in regard to the assassination of Dr. Tiller. The sole exception to this is Marysia.
Nearly all? Come on. Let's not be silly. I doubt you could come up with more than a couple of examples of this type. What Randall Terry and perhaps Operation Rescue? That's nowhere near "nearly all."
There has also not been a single environmentalist or environmentalist organization who in any way, shape, or form has expressed tacit agreement with the actions of the Unabomber. Not one.
I'm not sure about the truthfulness of this statement but there are radical environmental groups like the Earth Liberation Front who resort to violence.
And I assert that the American people aren't stupid enough to fall for your nonsensical justifications and retarded assertions.
And I assert you do a few minutes of research before making the easily disprovable assertions you've made here.
Have you ever heard of ALF and ELF? These are eco-terrorists who have caused more than 200 million dollars in vandalism, violence, and other hate crimes.
Have you ever heard of PETA? These are the animal rights activists who continuously harass, stalk, and, at times, attempt to physically harm those who use animal products or who are involved in the animal products industry.
And the violence perpetrated by those against the Vietnam era? To you, these people are heroes! Further, what about the anti-war protesters who resorted to violence at the last Republican National Convention?
Maybe you should be upset about these ultra-libs too who more consistently resort to violence than do those "crazy" anti-choicers. Just a thought.
BTW, how can those who want to protect unborn children be responsible for the actions of an individual who has hallucinations telling him what to do? I think we should be blaming Mr. Shroeder and his mental illness before anyone else.
There has not been a SINGLE anti-war activist who has called for the slaughter of soldiers or any other person who disagrees with them.
So when an anti-war activist demanded that Jews go back to the oven, that was not a call for violence?
And there it is - the Fox News talking point rehashed. Tell me, do you have one original thought in your head?
BJ Survivor's "there has not been a single" statements were easily refutable. It doesn't take Fox News to keep our side honest. Absolutist statements are always false! (Well, almost always.)
The difference between the two cases is that it is the rare anti-war activist who advocates for the murder of soldiers. With anti-abortion rights activists, those who advocate and participate in violence are much more common.
...and therefore we need abortion so we can get away with it, just like men. Pro death, pro choice, anti baby, pro life, anti choice, blah blah blah...who cares. We will fight you tooth and nail to have our white middle class equality of promiscuity. Want to do it with guns? Fine. Nothing will stand in our way to make sure that American men have as many female sexual partners as they can handle...even if the hypocritical bastards become disgusted with our behavior and run off to marry foreign women. Give me abortion or give me death.
Actually, what women need to achieve that disgusting "equality of promiscuity" are contraceptives, not abortions. In this post we were talking about reproductive rights and women's health.
And as a non-sequitur... do you really think men become disgusted when a woman sleeps with whoever she wants?
No, men do not become disgusted when a woman sleeps with whoever she wants. Why bother. He merely shifts his focus to more worthy women whenever he is ready.
Even if contraceptives are widely available and used properly all the time, there would still be a need for abortion on demand services. Ya know, just in case. Most promiscuous men do not oppose abortion because its one more available method (that he hopes a woman will choose to use as he cannot make that choice) to get him out of years of child support. But a man does have a choice as to whom he marries and the unbridled sexual freedom (freedom facilitated by contraception and abortion) of the women he beds typically points him in the direction of "other" women for a life partner. South America, Asia...the choices are stunningly endless.
Um, no. In my experience, the men who come to Asia (at least) to find wives or girlfriends are looking for a 'traditional' woman who doesn't question their Manly Authority. If they wanted a pure princess (unlike those domestic sluts) why would they go to 'hostess bars' to pick up girls? Because they can imagine women women who have sex to survive don't actually like it (unlike those domestic sluts)? I'm not buying it.
And yeah, my heart breaks for them when they discover that these women aren't the subservient sexbots they imagined. Wah, they want to be treated like humans too!
Derail over.
...as clearly stated. Contraception, abortion, and a good women's studies brainwashing make for a quick great time with American women. Thankfully, our taxpayer funded government joyfully provides a pass to an endless population of respectable incomparable non-conflicted happy marriageable women: The US Passport. Date locally...marry globally. Abort away!!!!
Someone's afraid that women won't have sex with him, it seems.
Hey, maybe if you weren't a hateful, misogynistic ass...
A man who finds women disgusting for having sex with him has a fucked up virgin/whore complex and is incredibly selfish. He believes he is entitled to use women's bodies because they (in his mind, selfishly) contracept or whatever, and that prevents them from conforming to his notion that he is entitled to a submissive sexbot for a wife, whose sexuality he fully owns and controls.
"Respectable, incomparable, unconflicted" are, in this sense, other terms for the traditional patriarchal virgin and the qualities she's supposed to have, another type of cartoon woman this hypothetical man indirectly hates. He likes her only because she fulfils HIS requirements and beliefs about what a woman ought to be: submissive, man-pleaser, etcetera. This clusterfuck often comes bundled with racist assumptions that foreign women (another "other") can't resist the Great Western Macho Man and that he is free just to waltz in and pick who wants like he's buying sweets from a candy bar.
To take this worldview seriously, you would have to accept several rules as gospel, namely that:
a) Women cannot truly live without a man to complement their existence, however badly.
b) Women are not truly human, but inferior beings that can be divided into easy categories according to how they relate to men: virgin/whore, wife/date, submissive/strident etc.
c) There is only a limited amount of respect in the world and all of it belongs to males (with the subcategories of orientation, status, wealth, and race).
d) Women are defined solely by gender, and that gender is defined solely by how it relates to the ever-fluctuating male gaze.
e) Women cannot exist outside the box of (d) and if one is presented with one who does, she is an aberration to be dismissed (because women aren't fully human, and can't be as varied and complex as men, see?)
f) Women are always the "other" with men as default (humans). (This is the basis of patriarchy, and where every other nasty imbalance comes from).
g) Women are not supposed to have autonomous sexual desire, and when we do, it's something to be hated and feared, cast as selfish and bad. (Key word being "autonomous". Sexual desire in service of the male gaze is permitted).
h) The somewhat bizarre assumption that if it weren't for teh ebil medical sciences coming up with fertility control, we'd all be perfectly happy doing the things expected of our gender (being submissive) and the poor patriarchs wouldn't have to run off abroad for their jollies. I suppose this ties into the notion that women, no matter what, have no real autonomy and that it's always someone else making decisions for us, whether that be pharmaceutical companies, the medical establishment, society in general or men.
Don't try this MRA shaming crap, TeflonExpat. Your virgin/whore complex and massive sense of smug entitlement drips from your every privileged word.
Ehn. That first paragraph is a bit tortured. I mean that our hypothetical patriarch thinks he's entitled to ALL women's bodies and their service, just in different ways, and the addition of fertility control (something he views as immoral) is just another reason to add to his list of why he should hate women.
Well thought out Princess. But short of taking away their passports for being naughty little boys, what could be done to stop this trend of leveraging foreign women to circumvent and undermine American feminist principles?
Nice try, troll. I can't tell whether you're just disingenuous or you think I'm as stupid as you are, but if you're going to try and fool this board, make sure your habit of capitalizing the subject line doesn't sneak into every different pseudonym you use. I'll try to make sure your bad trolling doesn't interfere with the American feminist principle... whatever the hell that is.
Does that sum it up for you Heather? Miller's Law, aka IMBRA, was a worthless attempt. Heck, even the federal government refuses to enforce it. Oh Priiincesss...hello from Cartagena. Got to go cause my little (yes, third time pregnant) Latina wife is whipping up some breakfast. Security is knowing that American feminism comes to a screeching halt at the Rio Grande River. Ta Ta.
Oh, I do like it when you come back and prove my point, Teflon. My post was about how men like you view women through the lens of your self-righteous, selfish, sexist smugness and you come right back and tell me unnecessary details about your home life like you're holding up your wife for comparison against all those "bad" American women who don't fulfil your expectations of what a woman ought to be, namely, a baby-maker and a cook. Not only that, you infantilize and insult your wife (Seriously, "little Latina"?) in the process of trying to put her on your mantelpiece as an avatar of what we ought to conform to in order to please you. Please, get over yourself. Your hideously large ego is stinking up the internet.
You try so hard to prove some point. But why bother? I agree with your "point" and in fact, your Point is the life we live. Your Point is what this paradise south of Texas is all about. If it was not for American feminism and all the associated pesky annoyances, we would not have even explored this wonderful opportunity. So, we thank you.
Oh, and you really should visit. But be careful not to spout your feminist rhetoric if you don't want the local women to run you out of town. The American men who live here may find American feminism humorous, but the women are convinced it is a pariah.
I realise you're just a troll, but you might want to do a quick Google search on Latin American feminists. Don't over-tax your tiny brain, though; you might get a headache.
he will never know what real love is. You can't love your jailer, so all he has is a relationship of convenience. ( if he has one at all, his laughable reference to Little Latina cooking I suspect is his attempt to inflame, but I have a feeling there is no wife or kids- people can say anything here!) I have seen many relationships where feminism has enriched them, because the two people involved have brought all of their unique ideas and education and skills and sharing, especially in the marriages of the younger people. One that I know, for instance, is secure enough where they occasionaly have a weekend with friends, while the other watches the children. They are always kissing, even after just celebrating their 10th anniversary in Hawaii with their children. These two are REALLY into each other, listen to each other and support each other, do projects together, work with each other, VALUE each other...but most of all, really LOVE each other and their children. They are secure in knowing that each of them had had a short past before finding each other, but wouldn't have it any other way. Love equals acceptance. You have to be secure enough with yourself to find that kind of love. Teflon is anything but secure. Without trust, there is no love, without supporting the others freedom on some level, there is no love. Feminism supports and causes the most loving, secure relationships. Domination and control, which Teflon advocates for the man over the woman, is a LOT of things, but love is NOT one of them. He is to be pitied.
An excellent post in response to Texpat, who probably considers himself to be a Texas Patriot, but who I consider to be a member of the American Taliban.
None of the REAL prolife groups ever advocate for anyones death!!
Roeder (Tillers killer) does not belong to any actual christian denomination, nor has he EVER volunteered at a crisis pregnancy center or been to a pro-life march....In fact: he is not affiliated with the pro-life movement at all. He is a fringe nut who would comment on sites once in a while...
...he is a delusional man who apparently alienated most everyone around him. I wish the pro-death group would simply get their facts straight.
THIS is the work of REAL prolifers:
If you are pregnant and need help, don't let anyone take the REAL choice from you:
Choose life
http://www.realalternatives.org/movie/
http://www.nationallifecenter.com/
http://www.nurturingnetwork.org/
http://www.lifecall.org/email.html
http://www.lifecall.org/
I could go on and on.
In the CPC I volunteer at we never treat any of the women unkindly, in fact, we have had to hide a few from boyfriends/husbands who were demanding these poor women go to a 'real abortion clinic.'
MOST women, if given a REAL choice (ie one that doesn't involved being threatened with homelessness or death)would choose life.
That is a statistical fact.Abortion is the unchoice.
http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf
In fact: he isJune 4, 2009 - 12:52pm
<blockquote>In fact: he is not affiliated with the pro-life movement at all.</blockquote><br>
Which is why he had the name and phone number of an Operation Rescue official in his car. No affiliation, my ass.
So your argument is that if you have the name and phone number of someone from an organization in your car then you are affiliated with that organization?
I guess I'm affiliated with a variety of oil change places, a few car repair shops, a gas station, a Volkswagen dealership, etc....
No True Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, either.
Furthermore, you're a spammer. You will be dealt with accordingly - may I suggest a stripping out of the spam in that comment?
Ignorant one, you will be silent, NOW.
Great Article! The Anti-Choice movement is beyond disingenuous and hypocritical. They need to called out on their B.S. I will never use the term "Pro-life" to describe these terrorists until they prove that they care about life that actually exist and support social programs like universal health care. The majority of abortion performed in the world happen in countries where abortion is illegal and many women die from their back-alley procedures. The Anti-Choice movement is based on a profound and deep-seated hatred of women.
Great, brilliant article. I'm so interested in the rhetoric surrounding abortion because so much of it (esp. on the anti-choice side) is totally unexamined, misleading, and illogical ("Abortion is murder!"), yet has somehow, through media and advertising, been very effectively lodged in people's minds to the point that the woman in the equation might as well not even exist - we now talk almost exclusively about the fetus, as though it is already out walking about on its own. I'm interested to know how the WOMAN as "life" (not just the fetus as life) has somehow, through this apparently effective conservative rhetoric, been erased from the abortion conversation. And I wonder how the pro-choice movement could adapt its own rhetoric to become more publicly effective.
Until the pro-lifers spend any time or resources picketing fertility clinics and working to enact laws against them I will continue to view their embryo-as-baby rhetoric as nothing more than a fearmongering tactic used to mislead well-meaning people into supporting their cause. The procedures used in the effort to procreate with medical assistance are responsible for the creation and ultimate destruction of countless embryos. But somehow that is an acceptable embryo-death, to be the unchosen among one's fertilization-mates, and no one who bought or manufactured this service is a 'murderer'.
You people who think you have the right to sit in judgment over people and make personal family decisions for them are simply ghouls.
If other people get to decide what I, a woman, can or cannot legally do with MY body, then I think I should be able to decide what THEY can or cannot do with their bodies.
If you don't believe in abortion, or think it is immoral, don't get an abortion. And stay the hell out of my life.
Live free or die.
There are no simple answers here. Both sides have valid points, and the decision to have an abortion is usually difficult and heart-wrenching.
Pro-lifers (sic) believe that fetuses are babies, and for many (not all) this belief justifies even murder to protect them. They equate the situation to having a police sharpshooter kill a terrorist who is holding a schoolroom of children hostage.
But the situations are not equivalent. A schoolchild is not holding another person hostage, with the potential to cripple or kill that person. A fetus can be considered to be holding its mother hostage.
I think BJ Survivor's post at 11:58 pm June 3 is right on the spot. Does our government have the right to demand that a healthy person donate a kidney, liver, or even heart to another person? NO. Our laws give us the choice to do so, but not the obligation. Even giving something as renewable as blood cannot be mandated by law.
Our law extends that choice to whether or not to endanger our bodies by undergoing pregnancy.
All other arguments, it seems to me, get bogged down in religious or belief system arguments.
I believe it is immoral to refuse to give blood or even bone marrow. I believe donating a kidney is something everyone should be willing to do. I believe it is totally unreasonable to demand a heart donation, but if someone were to commit suicide to provide a heart for a loved one, I would not condemn the action. But those are simply my beliefs, and I would not impose them on anyone else.
Is a fetus really a baby at the moment of conception? Maybe. Science can present valid arguments on both sides (Unique DNA does not define an individual, as any twin can tell you). Is the fetus an innocent life that deserves more protection than the sinful mother? That's a religious matter, steeped in concepts of original sin, the morality of sex, and notions of when a soul enters a body. Change religious philosophy (even within Christianity), and you change the answer.
The law arbitrates behavior, and stands apart from both religious beliefs and scientific theory. A law may be based on good science or bad science, or on beliefs one religion may hold to be moral or immoral. But the law is a set of societally-agreed upon rules.
Disagreeing with the law does not exempt you from following it, nor does it give you the right to be a vigilantee and impose your notions of what the law should be on someone else.
Abortion is legal if done following the rules set out by the government. Killing a born human is illegal unless the government sanctions the killing, and even then certain legal procedures msut be followed. By legal definition, if a killing is legal, it is not murder; conversely, murder is a type of illegal killing.
What the doctor did is legal and was not murder. His killer probably committed murder. I say probably because under the law, designating it murder requires a trial and conviction.
It is perfectly appropriate for people to attempt to change the law to match their moral principles. But it is important to realize that in a country based on law, not on religion, the law will reflect an amalgamation of moral and religious beliefs. The best an individual can do is constrain their own behavior.
If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. If you don't want others to have abortions, then work to make them unneccessary. Promote birth control, provide a support network and social acceptance for unwed mothers. (Even if you feel sex is sinful, surely having sex is a lesser sin than killing a fetus! Choose your moral priorities.) Work to streamline the adoption process.
I'm a pro-choice man; I believe everyone has a right to self-determination and freedom of choice with regards to pro-creation. However, it is so disturbing to me that most of you virulent pro-choice women are the first in line to financially castrate a man when a woman exercises her right to choice.
I wonder how many of you would stand up for a man's right to choice or use the same old line used against women by anti-choicers and say "you should have kept it in your pants."
because some people (American women) are more equal than others. Lucky for you, a US Passport is only about $50. Choose to use it.
Men whining that they can't get abortions makes as much sense as women whining that they can't get testicular cancer screenings. If you are biologic incapable of a pregnancy, then you don't get the option of terminating said pregnancy. It really is that simple. Child support is a completely separate from a woman having the right to choose what happens to her body.
When men carry babies, you'll get a choice.
Until then, shut your whining hole, boy.
If you truly believe in equality then work for it. Freedom of reproductive choice means not only availability to safe, reliable, affordable birth control and access to abortion (both in terms of material and psychological pressures) but also freedom to have and raise a child in a way that is supported and doesn't bring both heavy financial and social limitations that are now imposed on women who make that choice.
Paying child support is far, far less of a burden in current society than raising a child as a single parent, and especially as a single female parent.
Do not think that people are going to believe you are for "equality" when you are whining about the burden that men have. You are as much anti-choice as the so-called "pro-life" crowd. Supporting measures that pressure a woman to abort (which in current society elimination of child support would contribute towards) is just as disgusting as supporting measures that pressure a woman not to abort.
Pregnant much? You want your precious abortion of pregnancy rights? You go girl. The war is on and we WILL get our abortion of payments rights. You will NOT give birth to an annuity.
Funny, when you choose not to abort all of a sudden you're calling that parasite a baby and for the next nine months its about the baby and not your body. How convenient.
"Child support is a completely separate from a woman having the right to choose what happens to her body." Really? Because then she is solely responsible for what she produces with her body.
Unless of course you meant to say she has a right to choose what happens with her baby. That's ok, just a silly error.
Mavrik
pregnancy happens to a woman's body. that's why its HER choice and not a man's choice even if he contributed to the pregnancy.
Women = choice = power = responsibility.......Man = no choice = no power = no responsibility.
Women = choice = power = responsibility.......Man = no choice = no power = no responsibility.
Cranky much, Mavrik? Maybe if you weren't a whiny misogynist, you wouldn't have this problem.
Women = choice = power = responsibility.......Man = no choice = no power = no responsibility.
LOLwut? The poor menz; they are so persecuted. This is the crux of it, isn't it? Abortion oppresses the menfolk? It circumvents men's rightful womb ownership?
I think Mavrik means that if he does not have power over a woman's right to choose, he should not be held responsible for child support if she chooses to have the child.
I think Mavrik means that if he does not have power over a woman's right to choose, he should not be held responsible for child support if she chooses to have the child.
