Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Christian Fundamentalists Rally Against Choice In SF
Pictures Of The Rally Against Women That Was Held In SF On January 22nd 2005
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The anti-abortion crowd looks like its almost all 40 and older. I did see a few kids but almost all were under 18 and were probably dragged there by their parents. The pro-choice crowd was about half young people.
If the anti-abortion crowd really is mainly middle-aged and above, that's good news since it means that their movement will dwindle as the population ages.
If the anti-abortion crowd really is mainly middle-aged and above, that's good news since it means that their movement will dwindle as the population ages.
they ("pro lifers") look like they are confused,like they are walikg around in circles with their thumbs up their asses.
There were only 4 dancers from the San Francisco ballet there too. Go Figure. Beautiful young people like professional ballet dancers have better things to do.
Friend,
There were many of "us" who were also 40 yrs and older. This is not an accurate analysis of how to affect change or how change is made. And in many cases, the older folks that I know are MORE radical than a lot of younger ones (including myself) and they have more resources to affect change available to them than younger people.
I appreciate the sentiment, but it's wrong. Peace.
PRO-CHOICE OR NO CHOICE!
There were many of "us" who were also 40 yrs and older. This is not an accurate analysis of how to affect change or how change is made. And in many cases, the older folks that I know are MORE radical than a lot of younger ones (including myself) and they have more resources to affect change available to them than younger people.
I appreciate the sentiment, but it's wrong. Peace.
PRO-CHOICE OR NO CHOICE!
Church-going Americans have grown increasingly intolerant in the past four years according to a survey released on Saturday.
The survey highlighted increased frustrations with politicians making compromises on such hot issues as abortion and gay rights.
At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about pushing their beliefs on others - even at the risk of offending someone.
The trends could indicate that religion has become "more prominent in American discourse ... more salient," according to Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research organisation which released the survey.
It could also indicate "more polarised political thinking. There do not seem to be very many voices arguing for compromise today," she said in an interview. "It could be that more religious voices feel under siege, pinned against the wall by cultural developments. They may feel more emboldened as a result."
Telephone survey
The findings came from a telephone survey of 1,507 adults made in 2000 and a second similar survey of 1,004 adults done during the summer of 2004 that tracked the same issues. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Those surveyed were nearly all Christians, not by design but because the sample reflected the makeup of the population, the group said. A 2002 Pew Research Council survey found that 82% of the US populace considered itself to be Christian, while 10% identified with no religious group.
On the question of whether elected officials should set their convictions aside to get results in government, 84% agreed in 2000. However, four years later that had dropped to 74%. There was a sharper decline on the same question among weekly church-goers from 82% in the first survey to 63% in the second.
About 40% of Americans claim to be weekly church-goers, according to Corwin Smidt, director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Michigan. Some surveys have placed the figure at 25%.
Compromises less likely
In the survey, 32% of those who attended church once a week said they were willing to compromise on abortion issues - a 19-point drop in four years. Among the same group the
question of compromising beliefs on gay rights was acceptable to only 39%, down 18 points from 2000.
The poll also found that 37% overall felt that deeply religious people should be careful not to offend anyone when they "spread the word of God," a decline from 46% four years earlier.
The number of those who felt that committed faithful should spread the word "whenever they can" rose to 41%, up 6 points.
On another issue, the survey found little change in opinion on whether the US political system can handle greater interaction between religion and politics. Asked if there was a
threat if religious leaders and groups got a lot more involved in politics, 63% in 2000 and 61% in 2004 said the system could "easily handle" it. But the remainder continue to believe the system would be threatened.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9B9433BF-72D5-4F4C-A2D6-6A9BDA76C989.htm
The survey highlighted increased frustrations with politicians making compromises on such hot issues as abortion and gay rights.
At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about pushing their beliefs on others - even at the risk of offending someone.
The trends could indicate that religion has become "more prominent in American discourse ... more salient," according to Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research organisation which released the survey.
It could also indicate "more polarised political thinking. There do not seem to be very many voices arguing for compromise today," she said in an interview. "It could be that more religious voices feel under siege, pinned against the wall by cultural developments. They may feel more emboldened as a result."
Telephone survey
The findings came from a telephone survey of 1,507 adults made in 2000 and a second similar survey of 1,004 adults done during the summer of 2004 that tracked the same issues. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Those surveyed were nearly all Christians, not by design but because the sample reflected the makeup of the population, the group said. A 2002 Pew Research Council survey found that 82% of the US populace considered itself to be Christian, while 10% identified with no religious group.
On the question of whether elected officials should set their convictions aside to get results in government, 84% agreed in 2000. However, four years later that had dropped to 74%. There was a sharper decline on the same question among weekly church-goers from 82% in the first survey to 63% in the second.
About 40% of Americans claim to be weekly church-goers, according to Corwin Smidt, director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Michigan. Some surveys have placed the figure at 25%.
Compromises less likely
In the survey, 32% of those who attended church once a week said they were willing to compromise on abortion issues - a 19-point drop in four years. Among the same group the
question of compromising beliefs on gay rights was acceptable to only 39%, down 18 points from 2000.
The poll also found that 37% overall felt that deeply religious people should be careful not to offend anyone when they "spread the word of God," a decline from 46% four years earlier.
The number of those who felt that committed faithful should spread the word "whenever they can" rose to 41%, up 6 points.
On another issue, the survey found little change in opinion on whether the US political system can handle greater interaction between religion and politics. Asked if there was a
threat if religious leaders and groups got a lot more involved in politics, 63% in 2000 and 61% in 2004 said the system could "easily handle" it. But the remainder continue to believe the system would be threatened.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9B9433BF-72D5-4F4C-A2D6-6A9BDA76C989.htm
sorry, I meant that THEY (anti-choicers) had only 4 SF Ballet dancers with them I don't know if we had any.
One of the reasons the cops relate more to the anti-choice crowd is the high number of whilte men of a certain age (40-60). The cops can relate to those guys, so they are sure to make sure any group associated with those alpha males is handled with respect.
It's time to start dragging our pro-choice dads and uncles and husbands and brothers out to these rallies. It's time for them to support us by showing up and providing cover for us while we route around the cops. We've been letting the old guys slide a little too much.
Get off the couch, Dad! Get your ass out on the street, honey! Here's a sign, Uncle Joe!
It's time to start dragging our pro-choice dads and uncles and husbands and brothers out to these rallies. It's time for them to support us by showing up and providing cover for us while we route around the cops. We've been letting the old guys slide a little too much.
Get off the couch, Dad! Get your ass out on the street, honey! Here's a sign, Uncle Joe!
I doubt that many old white pro-choice guys (the respectible ones, not the grizzled hippies) are going to march in anything where ANSWER has prominent signs at the front of the march.
Leave the ANSWER shit at home, cut the shenanigans, and watch the pro-choice numbers swell with middle America respectible types.
Leave the ANSWER shit at home, cut the shenanigans, and watch the pro-choice numbers swell with middle America respectible types.
On the contrary. One thing old PRO-CHOICE people know is that not everyone agrees with everyone. In other words, pro-choice MEANS you let some people march under the ANSWER banner and you make a banner of your own that expresses what YOU believe. Everbody gets to CHOOSE.
That's what choice is all about. It's the OPPOSITE of single-minded, my-way-or-no-way thinking.
C'mon out all y'all dads. ANSER ain't the problem, George Bush is the problem!
That's what choice is all about. It's the OPPOSITE of single-minded, my-way-or-no-way thinking.
C'mon out all y'all dads. ANSER ain't the problem, George Bush is the problem!
I just realized that "Lighten Up" was kind of a harsh title. Sorry.
I didn't really mean "lighten up" as much as I meant, "hey let's let ANSWER do their thing and we'll do a different thing, but both those things are WAY different than George Bush's thing." But that doesn't fit in the title box.
I didn't really mean "lighten up" as much as I meant, "hey let's let ANSWER do their thing and we'll do a different thing, but both those things are WAY different than George Bush's thing." But that doesn't fit in the title box.
you said >> If the anti-abortion crowd really is mainly middle-aged and above, that's good news since it means that their movement will dwindle as the population ages.
You could not be MORE wrong! It just means that when you mature and experience life more you gain a truer understanding of what is right and what is wrong. You'll grow up someday, you'll see. Until then, continue your powerless verbiage - it is rather humorous
You could not be MORE wrong! It just means that when you mature and experience life more you gain a truer understanding of what is right and what is wrong. You'll grow up someday, you'll see. Until then, continue your powerless verbiage - it is rather humorous
There were many many middle aged and older people on the pro-choice side.
You might not have seen them because older women are invisible to you. That works out fine for us because we see you quite clearly and have plenty of life experience to figure out what you are all about.
It's all about controlling other people for you. You want to be able to keep women in a tight little box of acceptable behaviors. That makes you a small and easily defeatable person.
You might not have seen them because older women are invisible to you. That works out fine for us because we see you quite clearly and have plenty of life experience to figure out what you are all about.
It's all about controlling other people for you. You want to be able to keep women in a tight little box of acceptable behaviors. That makes you a small and easily defeatable person.
>>"That makes you a small and easily defeatable person. "
Suuuuuuuuuuuure, your successes are mounting (wrong). You lost the mayor race, you lost the governor's race, you lost the Presidential race and in the Senate and House too. Soon the Supreme Court will be decidedly against you for a couple of decades. The Left is falling apart at the seams rather rapidly and you talk of future successes. Toss those rose colored glasses off and stare at reality - or live in denial. Either way - you lost, you are losing, you are a non-issue.
Suuuuuuuuuuuure, your successes are mounting (wrong). You lost the mayor race, you lost the governor's race, you lost the Presidential race and in the Senate and House too. Soon the Supreme Court will be decidedly against you for a couple of decades. The Left is falling apart at the seams rather rapidly and you talk of future successes. Toss those rose colored glasses off and stare at reality - or live in denial. Either way - you lost, you are losing, you are a non-issue.
What about the shrub's call for inclusion? you lost you lost you lost? Well at least we didn't lose our way to the bill of rights like you did!
huh? nice response. very topical. very astute.
at homeless shelters. I mean they want every child to be loved don't they? Not just the embryos that are 12 seconds old. That'll be the day when the antic-choicers end their march at a soup kitchen and offer to pitch in. But maybe they don't have homeless families where they come from...
a fair trade - I'll volunteer at a homeless shelter weekly, and weekly you pick up and dispose of the muscle and brain and heart tissues of the partial birth abortions. agreed? fair deal?
I know you won't show up anyway. They made your type stay away from the march today I hear.
I bet you don't have a collection of pictures of women who died from septic abortions... ah the good old days.
I bet you don't have a collection of pictures of women who died from septic abortions... ah the good old days.
"a fair trade - I'll volunteer at a homeless shelter weekly"
Better yet, why dont you take your feel good political power and use it for something good. There are things right in front of your face that you can help change.
Oh wait, I guess you cant see much from a gated community, a strip mall or a motor vehicle.
Better yet, why dont you take your feel good political power and use it for something good. There are things right in front of your face that you can help change.
Oh wait, I guess you cant see much from a gated community, a strip mall or a motor vehicle.
Dear immature,
Why is it that you have not made much of a dent in the abortion issue even though it's been at the very top of the agenda since Reagan's golden days and even though you have all this "power?
Here's why....Your position is illogical and unsustainable. You refuse to provide financial options so that women don't have to choose abortion. You fight against birth control and sex education which could prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
And most of all you have a big gaping hole in your movement. Your daughters and wives and sisters and fellow church goers have abortions. Every clinic worker in the world has a story of performing an abortion on someone who was demonstrating outside the clinic and goes back to demonstrating a few weeks later.
That's why you can't win. You cannot really control your women because they are full fledged human beings who are responsible to God and to their own soul for their decisions, and in the end, all your rhetoric doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
Why is it that you have not made much of a dent in the abortion issue even though it's been at the very top of the agenda since Reagan's golden days and even though you have all this "power?
Here's why....Your position is illogical and unsustainable. You refuse to provide financial options so that women don't have to choose abortion. You fight against birth control and sex education which could prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
And most of all you have a big gaping hole in your movement. Your daughters and wives and sisters and fellow church goers have abortions. Every clinic worker in the world has a story of performing an abortion on someone who was demonstrating outside the clinic and goes back to demonstrating a few weeks later.
That's why you can't win. You cannot really control your women because they are full fledged human beings who are responsible to God and to their own soul for their decisions, and in the end, all your rhetoric doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
>>"I know you won't show up anyway."
Gotchya again.... I help frequently at the 'homeless' area that is part of Cal Expo in Sacramento.
You lose
Now.... go donate one week of your earnings to tsunami relief as I did. Oh, you are just a student with limited income? Then donate a week's effort (if you are a student). Or just sit there and whine.
Gotchya again.... I help frequently at the 'homeless' area that is part of Cal Expo in Sacramento.
You lose
Now.... go donate one week of your earnings to tsunami relief as I did. Oh, you are just a student with limited income? Then donate a week's effort (if you are a student). Or just sit there and whine.
This is what it used to be like if you needed to get an abortion.
For more information:
http://www.albany.edu/history/FromTheBackA...
For the so-called 'pro-life' side, a half-million dead children under indiscriminate sanctions, water & sewage plant bombings, and where chlorine was unavailable, and the near total destruction of the public health system in Iraq was "worth the cost". Didn't see the so-called 'pro-lifers' protesting that, did you?
For the so-called 'pro-life' side, women and children incinerated or dismembered and killed under American bombs in a pretextual war based on a blatant lie ("weapons of mass destruction") was also "worth the cost". Didn't see the so-called 'pro-lifers' protesting that either. Especially when Bush's lie (of WMD's) was fully exposed.
In fact, so-called 'pro-lifers' love wars - and executions.
'Pro-life'? What a joke!
The anachronistic Christian right religious fundamentalists = The American Taliban.
If they didn't have strong opposition in this country (especially in more educated areas, like cities vs. more rural areas), the Christian fundamentalists would have women in the same place as the Muslim fundamentalists (or the Jewish fundamentalists): limited as a controlled unpaid domestic servants labor force ("housekeepers") and baby makers (under an ideology of ultimately, in effect, compulsory pregnancy - no sex education, no contraceptives, no morning-after pills, no abortions).
Women as baby makers: to reproduce either more baby makers and unpaid domestic servants; or to reproduce more labor class men (and now even young women) to serve as an expendable draftable labor class for the elite's imperlialist wars; or to reproduce more affluent or rich men to reproduce, respectively, the establishment and, especially, the elite, in order to pass on property or wealth (upper wealth that is increasingly immune to taxes). Of course, all this can't be successfully sold for what it really is, but instead sold as "God's will."
For the so-called 'pro-life' side, women and children incinerated or dismembered and killed under American bombs in a pretextual war based on a blatant lie ("weapons of mass destruction") was also "worth the cost". Didn't see the so-called 'pro-lifers' protesting that either. Especially when Bush's lie (of WMD's) was fully exposed.
In fact, so-called 'pro-lifers' love wars - and executions.
'Pro-life'? What a joke!
The anachronistic Christian right religious fundamentalists = The American Taliban.
If they didn't have strong opposition in this country (especially in more educated areas, like cities vs. more rural areas), the Christian fundamentalists would have women in the same place as the Muslim fundamentalists (or the Jewish fundamentalists): limited as a controlled unpaid domestic servants labor force ("housekeepers") and baby makers (under an ideology of ultimately, in effect, compulsory pregnancy - no sex education, no contraceptives, no morning-after pills, no abortions).
Women as baby makers: to reproduce either more baby makers and unpaid domestic servants; or to reproduce more labor class men (and now even young women) to serve as an expendable draftable labor class for the elite's imperlialist wars; or to reproduce more affluent or rich men to reproduce, respectively, the establishment and, especially, the elite, in order to pass on property or wealth (upper wealth that is increasingly immune to taxes). Of course, all this can't be successfully sold for what it really is, but instead sold as "God's will."
The Republicans or their Supreme Court will _NEVER_ totally outlaw abortions! Get that through your sawdust heads, anti-choicers. For one, it would make the White House internationally look like even more of a crackpot administration than it already does and the U.S. would become even more morally isolated in the Western world. Two, the U.S. would have a _two_-front war waging, with a raging insurgency in Iraq and a raging insurgency right here at home in the U.S., even in the streets. It would _really_ politically radicalize women, across issues and across class lines, beyond what even the Bush administration is prepared to ever deal with. Outlawing abortion would be like reinstating the draft. You think you see protests, here and there, NOW over just the war...? There would be a liberal-leftist coalition _WAR_ in the streets here at home, just like during Vietnam!
So, the Bush administration will attempt to give the Christian right a _PACIFIER_ to suck on by increasingly chipping away at _POOR_ women's rights or access to abortions, by chipping away at the margins. It's the _biscuit_ that Bush will throw to you Christian conservatives. It's the responsibility of more privileged women, especially those in college or the professions, to fight for the rights and access of poor women to abortion, not wait until the rights of more privileged women _seem_ threatened. Lack of choice could keep poor women mired in a cycle of poverty, since Christian conservatives certainly aren't fighting for any anti-poverty programs. But Republican women are no more going to have their daughters' education (especiallly like grad school, business school, law school, med school, etc.) and young professional careers derailed by an unplanned but mandatory pregnancy, than are Democrat and leftist women. Not all women, like 1950's throwback Christian conservative women, want to stay home, cook and clean, necessarily raise children, and be dependent on a man for a decent life and standard of living.
CHRISTIAN ZOMBIE WOMEN NEED TO _WAKE UP_!
So, the Bush administration will attempt to give the Christian right a _PACIFIER_ to suck on by increasingly chipping away at _POOR_ women's rights or access to abortions, by chipping away at the margins. It's the _biscuit_ that Bush will throw to you Christian conservatives. It's the responsibility of more privileged women, especially those in college or the professions, to fight for the rights and access of poor women to abortion, not wait until the rights of more privileged women _seem_ threatened. Lack of choice could keep poor women mired in a cycle of poverty, since Christian conservatives certainly aren't fighting for any anti-poverty programs. But Republican women are no more going to have their daughters' education (especiallly like grad school, business school, law school, med school, etc.) and young professional careers derailed by an unplanned but mandatory pregnancy, than are Democrat and leftist women. Not all women, like 1950's throwback Christian conservative women, want to stay home, cook and clean, necessarily raise children, and be dependent on a man for a decent life and standard of living.
CHRISTIAN ZOMBIE WOMEN NEED TO _WAKE UP_!
"But _COLLEGE EDUCATED (AND PROFESSIONAL)_ Republican women are no more going to have their daughters' education (especiallly like grad school, business school, law school, med school, etc.) and young professional careers derailed by an unplanned but mandatory pregnancy, than are Democrat and leftist women."
>>"Outlawing abortion would be like reinstating the draft"
and that's a bad thing?
watch!
and that's a bad thing?
watch!
Funny how a group of 10,000 peaceful religious and Christian family folks can envoke so much hatred in your hearts, just by walking down the street to bring awareness to the tragedy that is abortion. I think this weekend was an eye opening event, that showed how much your side is threatened by goodness, faithfulness and humanity. It's not a threat to your rights; it's a threat to your conscious, and every hedonistic pleasure you enjoy. You showed your hate, nastiness, vulgarity, and ignorance. All you guys are capable of is belligerant chants and offensive signs. We love you anyways, and I know that is what angers you the most; all of your vulgar confrontation brought out of us was kindness, and peacefullness. Peace starts in the womb!
![P2050255.JPG"]()
![P2050267.JPG"]()
![P2050287.JPG"]()
This crowd was a lot bigger than that sorry inaugural protest.
This crowd was a lot bigger than that sorry inaugural protest.
For more information:
http://www.websamba.com/SFCUnderground/wal...
I see you all assuming that we DON'T help at homeless shelters, that we DON'T help children who are already born, and that we generally aren't a charitable group of people. This is entirely untrue. I, in fact, do help at a homeless shelter cooking food for the people there. I used to tutor middle school students. I help new immigrants with ESL. I don't do a ton, I don't even do enough, but I do something and so do the people I knew who were there.
What's more, I don't know why you all assume that most of us are pro-war and pro-death penalty. I am against the death penalty, and I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the war. Many of the people I was walking with were also against the death penalty. You have no reason to think we are all in favor of the war and the death penalty except for your own bigoted stereotypes about pro-lifers.
What's more, I don't know why you all assume that most of us are pro-war and pro-death penalty. I am against the death penalty, and I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the war. Many of the people I was walking with were also against the death penalty. You have no reason to think we are all in favor of the war and the death penalty except for your own bigoted stereotypes about pro-lifers.
read title...
More pictures of this Glorious event.
More pictures of this Glorious event.
"and that's a bad thing?
by and that's a bad thing? Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005 at 9:25 AM
>>"Outlawing abortion would be like reinstating the draft"
and that's a bad thing?
watch!"
YOU TOO!
by and that's a bad thing? Sunday, Jan. 23, 2005 at 9:25 AM
>>"Outlawing abortion would be like reinstating the draft"
and that's a bad thing?
watch!"
YOU TOO!
>I see you all assuming . . . that we generally aren't a charitable group of people.
You blow up buildings and murder people. How charitable is that?
You blow up buildings and murder people. How charitable is that?
We blow up buildings and murder people? I don't remember doing that. I don't remember anyone in my group doing that. You'd think I'd remember such a big thing, had I done it!
Oh, yeah, I never have. Neither, I might add, has any group I have ever been a member of or given support to. Just because someone with a certain viewpoint does something doesn't mean everyone who believes that is guilty. Is everyone who wants Ireland united an IRA sniper? Is everyone who wants to protect the environment Ted Kazynsky? Is every Muslim Osama bin Laden? No. Neither is every pro-lifer an abortion clinic bomber.
Oh, yeah, I never have. Neither, I might add, has any group I have ever been a member of or given support to. Just because someone with a certain viewpoint does something doesn't mean everyone who believes that is guilty. Is everyone who wants Ireland united an IRA sniper? Is everyone who wants to protect the environment Ted Kazynsky? Is every Muslim Osama bin Laden? No. Neither is every pro-lifer an abortion clinic bomber.
You are pro-life but you support Bush!? You support the war in Iraq!? So it is okay for people to die, but only after they are born? The whole Christian standpoint is totally screwed up.
Yes it is okay for some people to die. Everyone does. It's not alright to murder someone. Killing in a war is not necesarily murder, if it is done for legitimate reasons. We can disagree on the war in Iraq, and many of the people walking on the pro-life side were against the war. However, from the pro-life standpoint, FAR more people die due to abortion than due to the war. This doesn't make unjust war okay, but it does explain how even someone who was against the war could vote for Bush.
Myself I don't know enough about the war to decide whether or not its just. My inclination is that at the time with the information we had, the war seemed just. I'm not sure if this is the case however, so I don't have a strong opinion. However, whether or not this war was just is unrelated to the issue of abortion.
Myself I don't know enough about the war to decide whether or not its just. My inclination is that at the time with the information we had, the war seemed just. I'm not sure if this is the case however, so I don't have a strong opinion. However, whether or not this war was just is unrelated to the issue of abortion.
I'm an anarchist, so I am well familiar with the way people smear entire groups and philosophies this way, as being "violent." An anarchist shot McKinley ages ago, and we never hear the end of it - despite centuries of organized state violence, countless thousands killed by administrations both Democrat and Republican, and so on, which never gets the dominant political ideologies tarred as 'violent.' Due to this experience, I do not like to see anyone violence-baited.
Most anti-abortionists I've met have been basically decent folks, as people here have tried to point out in their own defense. I'm for abortion rights, not for inaccurate smears of my political opponents.
The real problem also has nothing to do with the positions of anti-abortionists in regards to war, or the death penalty, or charity, or capitalism, or birth control, or sex education, or anything else.
The fundamental problem is their stated aim - to outlaw abortion.
Now, everyone I have met who is a pro-choice activist has wanted to improve conditions for young mothers, so that they would not feel they have to choose abortion. They have done what they could to help people start families.
So have the ardent anti-abortionists I have known.
The difference between the two positions is that the anti-abortionist (so-called "pro-life," as though only anti-abortionists are in favor of life) arrogates to himself the right to dictate to a woman what to do with her own body, and to punish with legally sanctioned coercive violence her decision to have an abortion.
This does nothing to make the world a better place. Even if you are convinced that abortion is always a terrible wrong (which many of us are not), most people acknowledge that 'two wrongs don't make a right.' Punishing women for having abortions and punishing doctors who perform safe abortions only drives women who feel they must abort a pregnancy to back alley surgeries, risky and botched procedures, and death.
The ideal society envisioned by both anti-abortionists and pro-choice activists is a world without abortion. The difference is a difference in methods - the pro-choice movement promotes sex education and access to contraceptives, secure housing, resources, safety, and a decent living for all so that all women can be fortunate enough to choose the circumstances under which they become pregnant, and thus there would be no unwanted, accidental pregnancies. Therefore, no abortions.
The anti-abortion movement, rather than address these structural realities, pushes the agenda of raising visibility of the problem of abortion without proposing solutions. This in turn plays into the most visible and reactionary anti-abortion voices who call for a reinstatement of authoritarian punitive measures, the rollback of Roe v. Wade, and a return to the bad old days of coathanger abortions. That never worked the first time - it only exacerbated the problem. This explicitly authoritarian program is not fully endorsed by many anti-abortionists, the bulk of whom go no further than "abortion is bad" in their thinking, and don't even begin to consider how to minimize the problem. This allows the punitive, reactionary voices to dominate the anti-abortion camp.
I doubt most anti-abortionists want to see more of the same bad old days, with their sisters and daughters dying in back alleys and the doctors who would have saved them in jail.
But then, some of them do talk as if pleasure is inherently a bad thing, which is obviously crazy. So maybe some of them would like to see their sisters and daughters dead and doctors in jail.
Like the person who was condescendingly talking about how much they gave nothing but "love" to the "hostility" of pro-choice advocates. As if we can't see condescension for what it is - a form of hostility. It isn't love to try to control another person's life and body, which is what the anti-abortion position ends up advocating. If you try to shove women back into a less autonomous, less free, more subservient role, don't be surprised if some of them get mad at you.
If you really want to end abortion, you'll catch more flies with honey, as they say. Distribute accurate information on contraception and how to have sex without getting pregnant (lesbian sex is one surefire method). Give sufficient financial assistance to all young women who would like to have children but can't afford to. Offer to adopt any and all unwanted children, while raising them as their biological mothers request, rather than indoctrinating them with your own dogma and morality.
If these things sound difficult to you, they all pale in comparison to the difficult situation of a young woman who would like to have a child, but faces the painful reality that she cannot, in this society, care for a child due to economics, denial of access to education, ostracism, or other factors, and decides she must abort her pregnancy.
Most anti-abortionists I've met have been basically decent folks, as people here have tried to point out in their own defense. I'm for abortion rights, not for inaccurate smears of my political opponents.
The real problem also has nothing to do with the positions of anti-abortionists in regards to war, or the death penalty, or charity, or capitalism, or birth control, or sex education, or anything else.
The fundamental problem is their stated aim - to outlaw abortion.
Now, everyone I have met who is a pro-choice activist has wanted to improve conditions for young mothers, so that they would not feel they have to choose abortion. They have done what they could to help people start families.
So have the ardent anti-abortionists I have known.
The difference between the two positions is that the anti-abortionist (so-called "pro-life," as though only anti-abortionists are in favor of life) arrogates to himself the right to dictate to a woman what to do with her own body, and to punish with legally sanctioned coercive violence her decision to have an abortion.
This does nothing to make the world a better place. Even if you are convinced that abortion is always a terrible wrong (which many of us are not), most people acknowledge that 'two wrongs don't make a right.' Punishing women for having abortions and punishing doctors who perform safe abortions only drives women who feel they must abort a pregnancy to back alley surgeries, risky and botched procedures, and death.
The ideal society envisioned by both anti-abortionists and pro-choice activists is a world without abortion. The difference is a difference in methods - the pro-choice movement promotes sex education and access to contraceptives, secure housing, resources, safety, and a decent living for all so that all women can be fortunate enough to choose the circumstances under which they become pregnant, and thus there would be no unwanted, accidental pregnancies. Therefore, no abortions.
The anti-abortion movement, rather than address these structural realities, pushes the agenda of raising visibility of the problem of abortion without proposing solutions. This in turn plays into the most visible and reactionary anti-abortion voices who call for a reinstatement of authoritarian punitive measures, the rollback of Roe v. Wade, and a return to the bad old days of coathanger abortions. That never worked the first time - it only exacerbated the problem. This explicitly authoritarian program is not fully endorsed by many anti-abortionists, the bulk of whom go no further than "abortion is bad" in their thinking, and don't even begin to consider how to minimize the problem. This allows the punitive, reactionary voices to dominate the anti-abortion camp.
I doubt most anti-abortionists want to see more of the same bad old days, with their sisters and daughters dying in back alleys and the doctors who would have saved them in jail.
But then, some of them do talk as if pleasure is inherently a bad thing, which is obviously crazy. So maybe some of them would like to see their sisters and daughters dead and doctors in jail.
Like the person who was condescendingly talking about how much they gave nothing but "love" to the "hostility" of pro-choice advocates. As if we can't see condescension for what it is - a form of hostility. It isn't love to try to control another person's life and body, which is what the anti-abortion position ends up advocating. If you try to shove women back into a less autonomous, less free, more subservient role, don't be surprised if some of them get mad at you.
If you really want to end abortion, you'll catch more flies with honey, as they say. Distribute accurate information on contraception and how to have sex without getting pregnant (lesbian sex is one surefire method). Give sufficient financial assistance to all young women who would like to have children but can't afford to. Offer to adopt any and all unwanted children, while raising them as their biological mothers request, rather than indoctrinating them with your own dogma and morality.
If these things sound difficult to you, they all pale in comparison to the difficult situation of a young woman who would like to have a child, but faces the painful reality that she cannot, in this society, care for a child due to economics, denial of access to education, ostracism, or other factors, and decides she must abort her pregnancy.
FREE Donald Beardslee !
Beardslee's defense claimed that several head traumas had left him brain damaged, in prison he was diagnosed as having schizophrenia,
Beardslee's defense claimed that several head traumas had left him brain damaged, in prison he was diagnosed as having schizophrenia,
Regarding James' post, about "pro-death" (pro-choice) advocates being "pitiful:"
"Funny how a group of 10,000 peaceful religious and Christian family folks can envoke so much hatred in your hearts, just by walking down the street to bring awareness to the tragedy that is abortion."
I don't hate you, I just won't stand aside while you try to take away women's freedom. I agree that abortion is tragic, I just happen to have sympathy for the women who have to choose it.
"I think this weekend was an eye opening event, that showed how much your side is threatened by goodness, faithfulness and humanity."
No, James, it's your humility that threatens me. (That's sarcasm. You're being a pompous, self-righteous ass.)
"It's not a threat to your rights; it's a threat to your conscious, and every hedonistic pleasure you enjoy."
No, actually, it's a threat to our rights AND pleasures. Pleasure is good, James. Threat to our conscious? I am conscious, I hope you are too while you write... if not, it would explain a few things.
"You showed your hate, nastiness, vulgarity, and ignorance."
No, dear, that's you.
"All you guys are capable of is belligerant chants and offensive signs."
Again, funny, considering the source. I have very patiently worked clinic defense for health clinics under assault from some of the most belligerent, vulgar, and offensive "pro-life" people with some of the nastiest and dehumanizing signs and chants imaginable.
"We love you anyways, and I know that is what angers you the most; all of your vulgar confrontation brought out of us was kindness..."
Wait, was the part where you're so immeasurably kind and loving the part where you call us pathetic, or the part where you call us vulgar, or the part where you call us ignorant? Or perhaps it's the part where you try to take away our rights while telling us you're no threat to our rights?
I won't lie to you in the condescending way you've done here. I don't love you. I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I just won't allow you to take away anyone's hard-won freedom.
Even if you folks manage to outlaw abortion again, I'll just do what the heroines of the past did - the same sort of sustained direct action campaigns that made abortion legal in the first place. Hell, you could outlaw contraceptives again, and if you manage to roll things back that far, I'll just do like Emma Goldman did, and teach about contraception openly, and get thrown in jail for it over and over again until they deport me.
"Funny how a group of 10,000 peaceful religious and Christian family folks can envoke so much hatred in your hearts, just by walking down the street to bring awareness to the tragedy that is abortion."
I don't hate you, I just won't stand aside while you try to take away women's freedom. I agree that abortion is tragic, I just happen to have sympathy for the women who have to choose it.
"I think this weekend was an eye opening event, that showed how much your side is threatened by goodness, faithfulness and humanity."
No, James, it's your humility that threatens me. (That's sarcasm. You're being a pompous, self-righteous ass.)
"It's not a threat to your rights; it's a threat to your conscious, and every hedonistic pleasure you enjoy."
No, actually, it's a threat to our rights AND pleasures. Pleasure is good, James. Threat to our conscious? I am conscious, I hope you are too while you write... if not, it would explain a few things.
"You showed your hate, nastiness, vulgarity, and ignorance."
No, dear, that's you.
"All you guys are capable of is belligerant chants and offensive signs."
Again, funny, considering the source. I have very patiently worked clinic defense for health clinics under assault from some of the most belligerent, vulgar, and offensive "pro-life" people with some of the nastiest and dehumanizing signs and chants imaginable.
"We love you anyways, and I know that is what angers you the most; all of your vulgar confrontation brought out of us was kindness..."
Wait, was the part where you're so immeasurably kind and loving the part where you call us pathetic, or the part where you call us vulgar, or the part where you call us ignorant? Or perhaps it's the part where you try to take away our rights while telling us you're no threat to our rights?
I won't lie to you in the condescending way you've done here. I don't love you. I don't hate you. I don't even know you. I just won't allow you to take away anyone's hard-won freedom.
Even if you folks manage to outlaw abortion again, I'll just do what the heroines of the past did - the same sort of sustained direct action campaigns that made abortion legal in the first place. Hell, you could outlaw contraceptives again, and if you manage to roll things back that far, I'll just do like Emma Goldman did, and teach about contraception openly, and get thrown in jail for it over and over again until they deport me.
anarchist
what a woosie you are hiding mbehind that bs McKinley tripe
is this just a defence for a waisted life?
what a woosie you are hiding mbehind that bs McKinley tripe
is this just a defence for a waisted life?
Woosie?
What are you, 12 years old?
By they way, it's "wussy" as in "pussy".
What are you, 12 years old?
By they way, it's "wussy" as in "pussy".
"Anti-choice"? Such a complete and utter bias concoction thought up to twist around the issue at hand. Pro Life has nothing to do with being against womens' right to chose when to have a baby. Its clear and simple. Its about accountability and responsiblity. The women who have gotten pregnant chose to have the baby when they had sex at the first. And more than responsibillity, Pro-Lifers, not "Anti-Choicers", are all about saving lives. I here many people going on about how the occupation of Iraq is killing this and this many, when here at the home front, we're slaughtering thousands of babies. BABIES!!! The most precious of life and we are taking these lives and casting them aside to please someone who was irrespondible enough to have an unwanted pregnancy. Its the women who've made the choice to have sex without want of a child's fault that they are pregnant. Not the child. Killing a baby because it is unwanted is no better than killing a homeless person because they are an unwanted drag on society. Which makes the abortionist and woman who has the abortion murderers. True, there are special cases: such as when a woman is raped. But don't abortion the ones whom you have out of your own negligence in regards to the consequences of sex.
What a ridiculous man; so he's implying that we MURDER children to protect them? IDIOT.
How can a MORAL WRONG be a CIVIL RIGHT? You're CHILD-KILLERS, END OF STORY.
You lefties rightly complain about the illegal war in Iraq, then claim that youhave the right to MURDER your unborn children!
YOU ARE PATHETIC.
Pro-Choice? Pro-MURDER, more like!
GET A LIFE!
YOU ARE PATHETIC.
Pro-Choice? Pro-MURDER, more like!
GET A LIFE!
CHILD-KILLING ZOMBIE WOMEN- GROW UP!
CHILD-KILLING ZOMBIE WOMEN- GROW UP!
I am not anti-choice, and I do not think that Roe v. Wade should be overthrown. I am PRO LIFE. I encourage every woman who gets pregnant to choose adoption over abortion. If you want to have sex, fine, but USE BIRTH CONTROL if you don't want a baby. Nothing irritates me more than someone who "accidentally" gets pregnant while using absolutely NO birth control, or someone who has repeated abortions. Take some responsibility and stop killing your kids just cuz you were too lazy to prevent their conception. If you know how to swallow a pill or unroll a condom, there should be no need for an abortion. Period.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$55.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network