Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

A History of (Pro-Life) Violence

By Steve Almond, Nerve.com. Posted December 1, 2005.


Not all anti-abortionists kill people. But all share a histrionic view of themselves as heroic rescuers aligned against Godless fornicators.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steve Almond

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

When I was sixteen years old, I was pretty sure I had knocked up my girlfriend. We had been together for a year, having sex for half that time, and suddenly her period would not arrive.

A week went by, then another. We were good kids, horny but well behaved, with college and all the rest still to come. It was spring. I was waiting to hear from schools. Neither of us slept.

Heading into week three, we finally sought the counsel of my mother, who calmly suggested that we make an appointment with a gynecologist - immediately. My girlfriend was given a pregnancy test, which came back negative. Another five days went by. I pledged never to have sex with her ever again. I pledged to stop whacking off.

The morning before appointment number two, she called to tell me that her period had arrived at last.

I've been thinking about this episode recently for a couple of reasons. First, of course, because Judge Samuel Alito has been nominated to the Supreme Court. Barring an outburst of moral courage by the Democratic leadership, he will be confirmed and the Court will begin an assault on various civil rights laws, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other such radical notions. The big prize will be the reversal of Roe Vs. Wade, meaning abortion will again be outlawed, at least in certain states.

The main reason I've been thinking about my high school pregnancy scare, though, is because of an odd email I received a few weeks ago. It was from a young college student in a Southern state. She had read some of my work for class and, as an aspiring writer, she wanted me to know she enjoyed my writing, though she found some of the graphic material difficult to handle, given that she was both a Republican and a Christian who had pledged to remain abstinent until marriage.

I sent her a note of thanks, which (stupidly) included my observation that the current administration did not strike me as particularly Christian, insofar as Christ preached non-violence and ministered to the poor.

Her response began like so: "I must ask, do you believe in abortion? I do realize that it is a liberal stance, but I also realize that not all liberals assume it. If you are, I just don't understand why you feel it's okay to murder innocent babies who just 'didn't come at the right time' or who 'interfere' but don't think it's okay to defend our country from terrorists who have slaughtered countless Americans for their own pleasure?"

I am quoting her because her sentiments reflect, in a refreshingly unfiltered way, the posture of the Religious Right when it comes to abortion. And because I'd like to understand why a virtual stranger would accuse me of being a baby killer.

The answer is this: because doing so is one way of locating her murderous impulses within another. It is a radical example of what psychologists would call projection. This is one of the hallmarks of the Right in this country: an abject refusal to face their own rage. Any act of aggression is invariably framed as self-defense. (See, for tragicomic effect: Bush's claim during the first presidential debate that Iraq attacked us.)

Abortion simply exaggerates this impulse. It allows people to stand outside health clinics and emotionally abuse young women. In extreme instances, it allows individuals to murder doctors and nurses and to view themselves not as terrorists, but saviors. Obviously, not all anti-abortionists kill or harass people. But all of them share a histrionic view of themselves as heroic rescuers (the term pro-lifer says it all) aligned against Godless fornicators.

Ah yes, the fornicators. Embedded in the anti-choice stance is the basic notion that sex for pleasure is wrong. Sex is for procreation, which is why every fetus (in some minds every sperm) is holy. But most people, even Christians, want sexual pleasure a lot more than they want children.

This is why the anti-abortion movement emphasizes the most gruesome aspects of abortion; all those placards with dead babies aren't just there to spook the clients of Planned Parenthood. They are reminders of the horrors that await those of the faithful who fall prey to carnal desire.


Digg!

Steve Almond is the author of the story collection My Life in Heavy Metal and the nonfiction book Candyfreak.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Score!
Posted by: owlsliveintrees on Dec 1, 2005 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so first you insult her religious belief by implying that there is a contradiction between being a republican and a christian, and then you imagine that she has "murderus impulses" because she disagrees with you on abortion. Yeah dude, you really took the high road in this one. Score one for alternet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Score! Posted by: redstarwraith
» Bonehead... Posted by: CLB
» Contradiction Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Score! Posted by: kc4choice
Article points out once again how hard it is to argue with non-thinking people
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Dec 1, 2005 1:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really do not think that anyone, including the Democrats, can argue with people who parrot their religious leaders truths. They do not think for themselves and they dismiss anything that does not agree with what they have been told is the gospel truth. "The squeaky wheel gets the grease" is a very old fashion saying, but it is still true.

Being a female who grew up in a time when our sex was not allowed to get angry, I do not know how to deal with some types of ambiguity and conflict it causes me to feel. There is healthy anger and then there is irrational anger. Example, a drug I take used to cost $4.95/30. Last year when Walgreens was supposed to be helping seniors this generic discount the drug when up to $43.79. It was listed at the lower price online also. I tried to tell them it was the wrong price, but their computer said otherwise. I became irrational and told them to keep their drugs, marched out of the store. I was in raged, but there was nothing I could do to change the price. I was shaking so hard, I hardly could put my key in the ignition.

I think, as this article points out, I have had no way to spend my anger about so many things this Bush&CO have done. I did not really make a lot of sense at the time, except it was not fair. How many times have we said it is not fair in the last five years? Now I get so angry to see or hear Bush say anything, so I do not listen to or watch him.

Abortion is the one thing the religious right can use to stir people up, since it has to do with sex. Self-righteous people use the same kind of rage to deal with abortion. They are little people in a country that uses sex to sell everything. What ever fears they were taught as children, still lives buried in their psyches. Bad women have sex for other reasons than making babies, therefore we must punish them for enjoying sex. This is not rational. It goes back over 1000 years of church teachings. Enjoying of sex is a mortal sin, as in witchcraft. People were killed for it.

Irrational people cannot deal with their own feelings, it is so much easier to project and judge others. They can feel self righteous and make someone's else's life miserable. They sure cannot deal with any ambiguity. Things are either white or black. There are no grays in their world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sexuality and Aggression
Posted by: ChristopherL on Dec 1, 2005 3:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author asserts a correct interpretation regarding the current "Christian" movement, at least partially. His use of projection to account for the motive behind their intense need to see evil in others is accurate. However this is a defense mechanism formulated through the theories on Psychoanalysis by Sigmund Freud. Psychologists are behaviorists and no longer beleive in an unconcious. It is a potent subterranean force and the two dominant areas are sexuality and aggression. Conflict with either causes stress which is assuaged by defences such as projection (seeing what you fear most in yourself in others), splitting (the ultimate good vs evil with no in between), and repression (simply denying reality). Repressing sexuality and aggression only creates an imbalance as they not only become more intense but take outlets in other manners. Fear of gays equals fear of castration. Fear of terrorists equals fear of our own aggression. And so on and so on. The only resolution is to take the internal journey of self awareness. Only then will these "Christians" balance judgement and punishment with acceptance and compassion. I am not holding my breath!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sexuality and Aggression Posted by: triana1326
what about the rest of us
Posted by: bry1050 on Dec 1, 2005 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Steve Almond neglected to mention those of us who oppose abortion on moral grounds, but allow freedom of choice. Abortion seems to be the most divisive single issue ever, & since there seems to be no middle ground for minds to meet, the only answer is for both sides to agree on a majority vote in a referendum, & then live with the consequences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what about the rest of us Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: what about the rest of us Posted by: brasilaron
» RE: what about the rest of us Posted by: crachlis
» Personally opposed Posted by: BlueTigress
Well, she was a staunch "conservative" as she indicated so
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 1, 2005 5:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
there was little he could do with a closed-minded repug. Then again, like Lakoff would say, "Don't expect to convert staunch conservatives." All they're going to do is insist on the same rightwing bullshit even when it doesn't add up.

Yes, suburban VA has had a little of single of both sexes vote repug but not because of "abortion". Two major questions the Democrats can use to successfully frame the debate and both involve taking the "conservative" ideology and using it against them kind of like the way Kaine used the ideology against KILgore and won:

1. If you believe in "ownership society", why not extend that priviledge to women? After all, it's not that any of these women who are pursuing an "abortion" are doing it because they simply don't feel like having children.

2. Bush and his cronies in Congress and corporate America never need a permission slip to abort thousands to millions of lives year after year what with their destructive policies whether we're talking about the economy, the environment, foreign policy, etc ... so why force women to get a permission slip if they're truly unable to give birth to that child, most likely the result of rape or incest?

The day(s) more of us American people grow a real spine, the neocon movement will collapse and go down in flames.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Death Penalty
Posted by: mewithoutyou on Dec 1, 2005 5:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it curious that the people who most ardently oppose abortion are the same people who most ardently support the death penalty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Death Penalty Posted by: Dave04
» RE: Death Penalty Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Death Penalty Posted by: Envi
» Certainly! Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Whoa there Mr. Stoney! Posted by: ABetterFuture
» In short... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: In short... I agree whole heartedly! Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» Superlative. Open a drugstore. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Superlative. Open a drugstore. Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» My beef ain't with drugs. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: I can relate Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» RE: In short... Posted by: jstillwater
» RE: Whoa there Mr. Stoney! Posted by: aviendha36
» RE: Whoa there Mr. Stoney! Posted by: Vyking
» A couple of thoughts Posted by: kc4choice
» Another bonehead. Posted by: CLB
» RE: Pharmacist judges Posted by: duck-lady
» That's an awesome power you have. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» You hit the nail on the head. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: Thou shalt not kill? Posted by: harpy
» RE: Death Penalty Posted by: juanitoboy_34
» RE: Death Penalty Posted by: bry1050
» RE: Death Penalty Posted by: kwms
Consistant Life ethic
Posted by: Jim on Dec 1, 2005 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Christ preached non-violence and ministered to the poor." Yes!

As one who participates in anti-war, anti-death penalty, and anti-abortion actions, I thought I could inform you that the motivation for each is the same. I believe that killing people is wrong. The "projection" that motivates being for life -- relating to war, the death penalty, or abortion -- is the simple moral command shared by many, "do onto others as you would have others do onto you."

Personally war arouses my emotions to motivate me to work against injustice more that abortion does.

But medically the unborn child is a separate individual human being from the mother. The issue is what human beings have value.

Anti-war people sometimes publish photos of people killed in war for the same reason anti-abortion people publish photos of children killed by abortion; it helps people realize the humanity of the victims.

If you are interested in this point of view, check the group Consistant Life. Their mission statement is "We are committed to the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, abortion, poverty, racism, capital punishment and euthanasia. We believe that these issues are linked under a 'consistent ethic of life'. We challenge those working on all or some of these issues to maintain a cooperative spirit of peace, reconciliation, and respect in protecting the unprotected."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Consistant Life ethic Posted by: operabuff
» RE: The ethic of love Posted by: ShaSpirit
Dixie
Posted by: Dixie on Dec 1, 2005 7:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for pointing out the solipsism, hypocrisy, and violence of the religious right. They don't even meet the standards of their own religion. Reproductive rights are absolutely essential for women to even begin to consider themselves free and independent citizens. I also apprecite your concern for the real tragedies of the world as it is--violence, poverty, war. I have lived all my life in the reactionary and repressive south, and I am increasingly fearful of what will happen to Roe. I read such articles as yours to remind me that I am not alone. Thank you and thank you and thank you for a voice of reason and, though some commentators may not see it, compassion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dixie Posted by: kwms
I was hoping ...
Posted by: just john on Dec 1, 2005 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that this article would BE a history of "pro-life" violence.

Y'know, a comprehensive list of specific incidents. (Bombings, killings, etc.)

Anybody have a link to one?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I was hoping ... Posted by: owleyes
» RE: I was hoping ... Posted by: iamdazey
Tragic results of back street abortion
Posted by: ddmffood on Dec 1, 2005 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a 56 year old grandmother and could never imagine a circumstance under which I would have an abortion (moot point now). The subject of a "theraputic abortion" actually came up when I became pregnant with my third child after two difficult pregnancies, but I refused. All that said, the idea of the roll back of Roe scares me silly.

My maternal grandmother died of peritonitis caused by a botched abortion when my mother was 9 months old. The reasons for her choice have been lost over time; she was married and had one child. This left my mother to be raised by a succession of aunts, and then finally, by the Poor Clares in a convent. She never had a family per se, and the nun's ideas about discipline were draconian at best, and would be more than just a little illegal today.

She had no idea about how to be a mother. I was alternately neglected, pampered and beaten. I remember kneeling with a pencil under each knee for hours. When I played with fire, she lit the stove and held my tiny hands over the flames until they blistered.

I cannot know for sure, but I think my life would have been profoundly different had she been raised by a loving mother. Let's not go back there, to the days when a woman's body was not her own.

They are making it more difficult to obtain or learn about effective contraception, which cannot help but lead to even more unwanted pregnancies. It defies reason.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tragic results of back street abortion Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
Thanks for a good article.
Posted by: rebeers01 on Dec 1, 2005 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for a good commentary on the pro-choice/ anti-choice debate. Everyone who is offended by this article is just being defensive- something discussed in the article that the anti-choicers reading must have skimmed over...

I am a women's health nurse who takes care of women who have second trimester abortions. The general public DOES NOT REALIZE the potential impacts of Alito and reversal of Roe v. Wade.

As a women's health nurse, I am mortified about what could happen if abortion became illegal again. As a woman, I am terrified. What if my IUD fails? I don't want children, period. I don't want to be forced to go through nine months of pregnancy, period. I guess I should just stop having sex...

Which is the whole point of the religious right. Men can keep having sex, they won't get pregnant. Women must bear the costs.

I love the "baby daddies" bit in the article. I'll start believing that the religious right really care about 'little babies' when they start supporting universal health care, fair distribution of wealth, the end of gender discrimination which lends to female and child poverty, and fair trade, which will give women the tools (money) they need in developing countries to feed their children.

Don't even get me started on the Global Gag Rule....

Thanks again for a great article, and thanks alternet for the space to have dialogue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: hurray! Posted by: ShaSpirit
» RE: hurray! Posted by: ShaSpirit
» Our bodies, our choices Posted by: BlueTigress
and this is how you plan to win elections in dixie?
Posted by: gerdhansel on Dec 1, 2005 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two things that will not happen at the same time:

1. An ideologically pure Democratic position on abortion rights.

2. Democrats winning national elections without the benefit of a major scandal like Watergate.

Winning a majority in the Electoral College requires the Democratic candidate to carry at least one borderline redneck state like Florida or Missouri.

If you want to peel away 5-plus percent of the NASCAR dad vote in 2008, you're going to have to give up a little of your ideological purity on abortion rights.

Stop insulting the intelligence and capacity for compassion of Southern evangelicals, and maybe another five percent of them will vote for your Presidential candidate in 2008.

Keep calling them unfeeling bigots who want to keep upper middle-class white coeds barefoot and pregnant, and your guy will not win in 2008 unless somebody catches a prominent Republican with a dead girl or a live boy.

The choice, pardon the pun, is yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: so is the first amendment Posted by: ShaSpirit
"The Handmaid's Tale" becoming reality
Posted by: zooeyhall on Dec 1, 2005 8:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would urge anyone concerned about abortion rights to check out a 1990 movie called "The Handmaid's Tale", which was also a book. It presents a frightening picture of the future that the right-to-lifers will inevitably lead us to.

This was a courageous and provocative movie starring Robert Duvall and Faye Dunaway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Arguing at cross-purposes
Posted by: Xanthippe on Dec 1, 2005 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I enjoyed the article, but I think that both Mr. Almond and the young woman who wrote to him are arguing from separate premises without acknowledging that this is the problem. She believes that the fetus is a person with moral standing. He does not. (That's pretty clear -- my guess is that Almond would NOT think a woman justified in, say, killing her boss, even if he interfered with her well being, her potential academic career, etc.) The question should instead be about whether a non-sentient, non-experiencing being is a person with moral standing. The fetus does not begin to have experiences until the fifth or sixth month of gestation (according to the New England Journal of Medicine, 1986 -- the cutoff comes even later according to a more current medical sources). The cortical architecture is not yet complete until this stage. And by the sixth month, 99% of all abortions have been performed. Mr. Almond could therefore argue that 99% of all abortions do not involve the killing of a person, since they do not involve the killing of a sentient being. His correspondent might then claim that moral rights (such as the right not to be killed) are conferred by something other than sentience, but she cannot invoke biblical accounts of personhood with no basis in science without violating the separation of church and state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: Xanthippe
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: Xanthippe
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: fullavit@hotmail.com
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: Xanthippe
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: Xanthippe
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: iamdazey
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: Xanthippe
» RE: Arguing at cross-purposes Posted by: iamdazey
Give the foetus a left wing voice
Posted by: db on Dec 1, 2005 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why do we leave it up to the extreme right to speak for the foetus? Where is the understanding of where Roe V. Wade leaves us on the issue of carte blanche regarding abortion? Is it possible that this is an unfinished issue and we need to exercise intellectual muscle to keep up with science, understand the nuances of when indeed, a foetus becomes an unborn child? This bothers me, a far leftie.....I want to know the truth and I miscarried at
6 1/2 months....he looked like a baby to me. What about looking at the science of when a foetus can sense pain? Is this a good ethical point to draw the line on having an abortion? Let us show our compassion and strength to being willing to investigate the truth, fearlessly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Good thought. Posted by: DFrost
ms
Posted by: lee slaughter on Dec 1, 2005 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank you, mr almond, for your observations. As a 50 yr old woman who had an abortion at age 23, I would like to point out the "error" in your thinking/language. Neither I nor the women I know who have had abortions have experienced any "anguish" over the decision to end a pregnancy and in your closing statement you referred to "unborn babies"..This allows the right to reframe the discussion by using incorrect language. It is NOT a child until AFTER it is born. It is the mythology of the right that abortion is a gut- wrenching, "anguished" decision. Not necessarily so....some women who have assimilated the cultural garbage that we are taking a life may have bad feelings, but in a world where abortion is viewed for what it is, a medical procedure that is sometimes necessary for a myriad of reasons, there is no "anguish" involved. Twisting the language, projection and other tactics used by "prolifers" is exactly why some women may feel bad about an abortion. Your point is exactly right though, it is REALLY about a women's right to control her OWN body, not the church, not the state, WOMEN must decide their fate. thank you for sharing your thoughtful insights on this volatile issue, but like most of the people who make the laws, control the power and write op/ed pieces, this is a decision you will never have to make. And when you do decide to comment on the issue, try to consider the language you use and make an effort to at least be precise, if not completely informed. sincerely, lee slaughter

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ms Posted by: db
» RE: ms Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: ms Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: ms Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: ms Posted by: Jim
» RE: ms Posted by: Vyking
» RE: ms Posted by: Jim
» RE: ms Posted by: aviendha36
» RE: ms Posted by: lee slaughter
Believer
Posted by: believer on Dec 1, 2005 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am female, call myself Christian, dislike abortion but support the right to choose, and have said to friends who wish to outlaw abortion: "Until you, personally and corporately, are willing and able to provide whatever medical, psychological, financial, or any other support any and all women need to carry a child to term, and are willing to similarly support the child after birth, then you have no right to tell her what she can or cannot do regarding her pregnancy." No one as yet has volunteered to take on that task.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Believer Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: Believer Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Believer Posted by: threedfm
maybe
Posted by: daniel1982 on Dec 1, 2005 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good case can be made for early-term abortion; however late-term abortion is absolutely horrific and there is no excuse for it. The fact that there are people (mainly on the left) that support this measure is sickening.

Nor has it occurred to her that those women who get abortions suffer considerable anguish, that they are not sex-crazed degenerates who waltz into the stirrups whistling "Zip-A-Dee-Do-Da."

Except the ones that wear 'I had an abortion' t-shirts during rallies... they seem to be quite fine with it, even proud. Which brings me to my next point. Abortion is nothing to be proud of. If you're in the position where you're considering abortion it means you screwed up royally somewhere along the way(with the exception of rape victims). So smarten up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: maybe Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: maybe Posted by: Vyking
» RE: maybe Posted by: morticia
» Late term abortion Posted by: BlueTigress
pathologies running amok
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 1, 2005 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That the Fundies in Christianity have an apparently deep seated hatred of women and view them only as vessals for procreation is obvious. What is amazing is the stupendous amount of hypocrisy involved here. I personally know many women who are violently opposed to abortion who have had them when push comes to shove. I've known many fundie men who could care less about whether or not their sperm has created one of the "unborn" who were aborted unless they felt that they weren't in control of the woman's decision. In fact, these people only care so passionately about the "unborn" when it is some one else's life they meddle in. When it comes to a choice, fundies are just like everyone else - principles be damned. Quite simply, reproductive choices are no one else's damn business except the woman involved and no one in their right mind can really determine or should make the determination that she is irresponsible, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pathologies running amok Posted by: rickbwa
» RE: pathologies running amok Posted by: BlueTigress
The Bad Old Days
Posted by: morticia on Dec 1, 2005 10:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When abortion is illegal, women have illegal abortions. This is simply a fact, whatever our opinion of it. A society that makes abortion illegal puts women, especially very young and ignorant ones, in grave danger. I had an illegal abortion when I was a teenager in the latter 1960s, just a few years before Roe v. Wade. It was the full-on Back Alley Experience of the Bad Old Days, which will come back if Roe is overturned. If you have a rosy vision of abortion disappearing because it's no longer legal, you're deluded. The reality is, for example, my experience: a 17-year-old tramping the streets of New York and Jersey City, alone, a wad of cash in her pocket, looking for an abortionist, not knowing if the person she found was going to be a doctor, a motorcycle mechanic, a prostitute or a mortician, if she was going to be poked with a catheter, an umbrella spine or a solution of soapsuds and Clorox on a kitchen table or a bathroom floor, knowing virtually for certain that she was going to be sexually molested and humiliated and almost certainly ripped off, and that dying of hemorrhage or septic shock was a very real possibility because she might not get any help at all because of her "crime."

Enough time has passed that people's memories are getting fuzzy. A generation has grown up in an era of safe, legal abortion, with no real notion of the reality of the pre-Roe era, when women were separated from existing medical technology because of laws and ideology, and often died horribly because of it. Worse, there are "pro-life" historical revisionists extant nowadays who are saying that all those horror stories you hear about pre-Roe abortion--coat hangers, bleeding to death on motel room floors, being met by strange men and riding blindfolded in the back of a car--are a big exaggeration, mere propaganda. Those of us who were "there" need to testify loud and clear. And we say: Never Again!

Read more at:

http://www.motherjones.com

Look for an article from Sept./Oct 2004 called "The Way it Was." More reading: THE WORST OF TIMES, by Patricia G. Miller

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Bad Old Days Posted by: liberalibrarian
two points
Posted by: esactun on Dec 1, 2005 11:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Outlawing abortion--in any circumstance--is tantamount to forcing women to bear children. That, in turn, is tantamount to treating women like cattle. It's that simple.

Don't like abortion? Don't have one! Lots of people, including the alleged patriots in Washington, have a fundamental misunderstanding of freedom. Only allowing others do do what fails to offend YOU is NOT freedom, ferchrissakes!

The poster who (unintentionally, it seems) echoed right-wing propaganda above--ie that needing an abortion is a sure sign "you've screwed up royally" (!)-- should learn about a nasty little reality known as "contraceptive failure."

Ok, that was three points. Sorry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: two points Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: two points Posted by: morticia
» RE: two points Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: two points Posted by: morticia
» RE: two points Posted by: Vyking
and another thing
Posted by: esactun on Dec 1, 2005 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some women, even lefties, DO feel anguish over abortions. It doesn't give anything to right-wing fools to acknowledge this simple reality.

Do ALL women feel this way? No. But you can't claim that none do, or that it's wrong to feel that way--any more than right-wingers can claim that all women feel this anguish, and that NOT feeling it is wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Chastity pledges not good birth control
Posted by: harpy on Dec 1, 2005 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read that of those who take the chastity pledge, only about 12% follow through. The rest have unprotected sex with all the risks. It's interesting that the people who want to deny birth control and abortion, are the same people who want to deny financial aid, food, and health care to children and mothers who really need help a heck of a lot more than Exxon. They want to make sure the world is populated with people who will live their life in poverty and then stand back and say "it's their own fault," or worse, "it's God's will."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anti-choice, Anti-pleasure
Posted by: Numinous on Dec 1, 2005 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You raise an interesting point about the connection between being anti-choice and being anti-sex-for-pleasure (especially for women, I might add). Witness the rise of abstinence-only training, zealous pharmacists withholding birth control from single women, the FDA failing to approve the morning-after pill, the far-right protesting a vaccine for preventing virus-related cervical cancer. You gotta wonder, what is so damn threatening about female sexual gratification? And isn’t it unhealthy, tragic and downright creepy that old white men (Dobson, Robertson, Alito etc.) are so obsessed by it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anti-choice, Anti-pleasure Posted by: churchofone
Anti-choice, Anti-pleasure
Posted by: morticia on Dec 1, 2005 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creepy indeed. It's the all-American White Bread version of the Taliban.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terroists for God!
Posted by: zentao on Dec 1, 2005 1:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I found the following on the blog at prickwear.com, it is rather interesting:

This test is meant to illustrate how our enemy can so often look just like us, only holier. Profile these assholes:
1. In June of 1964 three civil rights workers in Mississippi were gunned down and buried in a ditch that had been dug out earlier, specifically to rest their rotting corpses, by a group of
a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50
b. Christian male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 (the man most recently tried in this case, Edgar Killen, was 38 and an ordained Baptist minister at the time that he conspired to murder the men)
2. From 1976 to 1983 as many as 30,000 were killed and tortured in Argentina; many of those who disappeared were disemboweled and thrown from airplanes into the ocean; others were killed and buried in mass graves. These atrocities were committed by
a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50
b. Christian male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50 (during the “Dirty War”. Look it up)
3. Tony Alamo was charged with felony child abuse for his involvement in the beating in 1988 of an 11-year-old boy that was so severe it left him unable to sit for almost three weeks. Alamo was a leader of a religious sect in California, and a
a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50
b. Christian extremist between the ages of 17 and 50 (spank them into submission, that always works. Especially for the Christian father that in January of this year beat his son to death trying to “box” with him because he was afraid his son was going to turn out gay)
4. Paul Hill was the first person executed in the US for anti-abortion violence, after he was convicted of the 1994 slayings of Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard. Hill was a
a. Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 50
b. Christian extremist between the ages of 17 and 50 (and was also a former Presbyterian minister—double trouble! Thank you so much for helping rid the world of those pesky doctors.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4&n