COMMENTS: 92
Anti-Abortion Movement Borrows Tactics from the KKK
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
The protesters carry handmade signs and pictures of fetuses sucking their thumbs. They play violins and blow loudly into horns. They thrust graphic pamphlets at the patients, form prayer circles on the sidewalk, and teach their children to plead with women to not murder their babies. The protesters are mostly women. They look like Sunday school teachers, housewives and hip grandmas. And, during the past few months, they have grown more vocal and more organized, emboldened by the recent closure of the only clinic in Mobile.
Every state in the Deep South -- Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina -- restricts low-income women's access to abortion. Most ban abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy. None explicitly protect heath care facilities from harassment or violence. All have mandatory delay laws that unfairly burden women who have limited access to transportation and time off work, and Louisiana and South Carolina both passed unconstitutional laws requiring a husband's consent for a married woman's abortion. In the past 16 months, two abortion clinics in Alabama have closed, and new regulations are making it difficult for other clinics to stay open. Now, anti-abortion groups are strategizing ways to outlaw birth control and eliminate sex education.
Michelle Colon, president of the National Organization for Women's (NOW) Mid-South region (Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Tennessee) calls it a "war on women" -- the gravity of which citizens in more progressive parts of the country don't appreciate. "The rest of the country kind of writes off the South -- people feel the battle has been lost here," Colon says.
Colon is part of a vocal, scrappy cadre of grassroots activists challenging the well-funded, entrenched anti-abortion movement that has long dominated state legislatures and local pulpits across the region. One Southern feminist put it this way: "Women here are sick and tired of being sick and tired." "It's not legal, is it?"
Every morning when June Ayers arrives for work, she scans the parking lot for suspicious people and packages before getting out of her car. Ayers owns Reproductive Health Services, one of seven clinics that provide abortions in Alabama. She's been followed home, trailed at the mall and harassed on her front porch.
Ayers was close friends with David Gunn, a doctor who performed abortions at clinics throughout Alabama and Florida. Anti-abortion protesters plastered Gunn's face and home phone number to "Wanted" posters and distributed them at rallies. He answered their harassment by blasting Tom Petty's "I Won't Back Down", singing along, and wagging his finger in their direction. In March 1993, Gunn died when a protester shot him three times in the back outside of his clinic in Pensacola, Fla. The doctor on Ayers' staff now wears a bulletproof vest.
Ayers recently invested in a sprinkler system to keep the protesters at bay. She has also installed concrete stepping-stones across the lawn so patients and escorts can avoid the protesters crowding the sidewalk. She bought orange vests for the escorts, so startled patients can distinguish between protesters and volunteers.
"At least once a month, I have women who call me and ask whether abortion is legal. That type of misinformation is rampant," says Ayers. "We're in the middle of the Bible Belt. It's not just religion, it's the fanatical religious aspect that keeps stirring people up who are opposed to us."
It's a place where the Christian Coalition holds sway over politicians, and many people vote the way they're told in church. The legislative climate is "very hostile" toward abortion, says Felicia Brown Williams, who oversees Planned Parenthood's advocacy agenda in Mississippi, one of two states with only one abortion clinic.
Mississippi has passed so many laws governing what abortion clinics can and cannot do that it is virtually impossible to open a second clinic without breaking state law. Mississippi requires permission from both parents for women under 18, except in cases of incest. The state's conscience clause allows pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control. And earlier this year the Mississippi legislature passed a "trigger law," immediately making abortion illegal should Roe v. Wade be overturned.
From 'pro choice' to 'reproductive justice'
In the early-1990s, researcher Loretta Ross noticed the anti-abortion movement was borrowing tactics from the Ku Klux Klan -- things like "Wanted" posters and targeted bombings. Ross now directs SisterSong, a national reproductive health collective in Atlanta. She travels the country, encouraging groups like Planned Parenthood to adopt a philosophy that SisterSong terms "reproductive justice."
"Stopping at the right to terminate a pregnancy is woefully inadequate when it comes to the realities of people of color," Ross says. "We have to fight for three different dimensions of the struggle: We join our pro-choice sisters to fight for the right not to have a child; but as women of color, we have been subjected to various strategies of population control, like forced sterilization, so we also have to fight for the right to have a child, especially in the context of people accusing us of having babies to get on welfare or to stay in the country. And we have to fight for the right to parent the children we already have, thanks to a criminal justice system that's trying to capture them earlier and earlier."
Moving from "pro-choice" to "reproductive justice" may prove crucial in the Deep South -- home to a fast-growing Latino population -- and towns like Montgomery, Ala., which is about 50 percent black.
"There is an unholy alliance between the legislators who oppose civil rights and the legislators who oppose reproductive rights," Ross says. "As long as we look at reproductive rights only as the politics of gender, we will be missing the guiding script."
Each year, Operation Save America (OSA) targets different clinics across the United States. Last summer, the group traveled to Jackson, Miss., for a weeklong "siege" to temporarily shut down the state's only abortion clinic. OSA members, who compare themselves to Martin Luther King Jr., liken abortion to black genocide and lynching. While the anti-abortion movement has made inroads with some black churches, OSA's references to lynching and Rev. King went too far.
Jackson's abortion rights community mobilized to protect the last clinic in Mississippi. With volunteers coming from as far as Canada, they organized a door-knocking campaign, traversing Jackson's communities of color and poor white communities, educating residents about OSA.
Abortion rights supporters from across the South flooded Jackson that week, in a series of counter-rallies and speak-outs called Reproductive Freedom Summer. OSA's tactics -- burning a Gay Pride flag and pages of the Koran, and picketing two Christian churches -- created a local uproar. The clinic stayed open. So goes the nation
Other states, like New York or Wisconsin, have achieved a kind of equilibrium, with a mass of vocal supporters on both sides. Outside of cities like Atlanta, this isn't true of the Deep South.
"People are afraid to be seen at pro-choice events for fear of losing their jobs, or being rejected from church, or their kids being ostracized at school," says Colon, of Mid-South NOW. In some places in the South, abortion is referred to as the "A word"; and many women, upon arriving for an abortion, tell clinic staff they think abortion is wrong.
"Most of the time, women think they actually deserve the ridicule and harassment from the street protesters," says Ayers, from the Montgomery clinic. "It's self-punishment: 'I deserve to be accosted, because this is the choice I'm making.'"
Last year, Deirdra Harris Glover realized her silence implied tacit approval of Mississippi's proposed abortion ban. So Glover, an admitted "professional geek," launched ProChoiceMississippi.org to encourage closeted abortion rights supporters to come out. "Shame is an incredibly dehumanizing tactic used by the anti-abortion movement," Glover wrote in an email. "They've managed to paint abortion as too awful to ever be dragged into the light of day."
The Deep South's reproductive rights community has few political allies. In Mississippi and Louisiana, Democrats run on anti-choice platforms. "We don't have any judges on our side. We don't have many in the media on our side," says Colon. "The pro-choice allies in the state legislature are the older black men. The women in the legislature sell us out every time."
And yet thinking that anti-choice zealotry is only an issue south of the Mason-Dixon line is a mistake. Laws restricting women's access to healthcare have chipped away at abortion rights in almost every state. In fact, only seven states have laws protecting the right to an abortion.
"In some ways, the South is behind; but in some ways, the South is dictating the rest of the country," says Ross, of SisterSong. "There wouldn't be a resurgent right-wing if the rest of the country wasn't becoming Dixie-fied."
Colon adds: "If we lose the South, the middle of the country won't be long."
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Oct 10, 2007 4:59 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He isn't crazy about piercings or tattos, but he knows I like them, and it's my body, and he has no say in the matter.
I recall several decades ago, hearing a neighbor of ours, after having given birth to her sixth child, tell my mom that she had wanted to have her tubes tied after this one, but that her doctor had refused unless her husband agreed to it, "because he might want more children." Her husband refused to give consent because they were Catholic. She informed him that if he wanted any more children, he could damn well figure out a way to get himself pregnant, because there would be no more sex until her tubes were tied.
The very idea that a woman needs her husband's permission for any medical procedure is beyond asinine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'll bet the same doc would have given a vasectomy to that husband
Posted by: natasha42
» The article you linked to... WOW... disturbing
Posted by: defrag
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» **MEN ARE IN THIS DISCUSSION ONLY AS A COURTESY--YOU DON"T GET TO DECIDE**
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: Tombo
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: idamonster
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 10, 2007 6:34 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tactics "borrowed from the KKK"
Posted by: Nugeman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 10, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While proclaiming their love for the "unborn" they at the same time are loudly proclaiming the Rush Limbaugh soundbites about the need to eliminate welfare, AFDC, food stamps, the minimum wage. National Healthcare, which might help these single moms, is anathema to the right-to-life crowd.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: dmb8762
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: wamama
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: dmaciewski
» then why aren't you doing more to oppose these wackos?
Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: then why aren't you doing more to oppose these wackos?
Posted by: dmaciewski
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Liberal Hippie on Oct 10, 2007 7:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman, I know that it should be a basic, fundamental right to choose when to have children, when NOT to have children, and how many children to have period. Forcing women to carry pregnancies that they are not willing or prepared to handle can be a lifelong devastating event. There are physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and financial ramifications to having a child, and those burdens should not be overlooked when choosing to have one or not. To be fair, I think that everyone who is thinking about becoming a parent needs to ponder that long and hard even before conception.
These clinics, and their health care providers, are facing constant and possibly life threatening harassment. And yet it's perfectly legal, from a hostile legislature down to the local police, no one will intervene. A shirt with the names of the war dead is illegal to wear in five states, but what they endure is a-okay? Ugh...I need to go cry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: this hurts my heart
Posted by: deaudonnee
» RE: this hurts my heart
Posted by: Liberal Hippie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rinthy on Oct 10, 2007 7:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rinthy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boydranchitos on Oct 10, 2007 7:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came to work inside at one clinic. We provided the Compulsory Gestation forces with abortion on demand w/o comment. They would need to sneak in, because they didn't want their facsistic friends to know they were using our services.
I had to ask them, why were abortion foes seeking the very rights they sought to deny others for themselves, for their relatives?
The answer never varied in distilled content: ALWAYS theme and variation on
"it's different if it's ME/MY daughter/MY sister.... etc. ad nauseum.
And now their friends in government behave the same way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Clinic Escorts... Thanks for doing that job!
Posted by: mombot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 10, 2007 7:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note that in Catholic Italy in the 19th century, a disproportionate number of out of wedlock female infants died as compared to males. Interesting how economics ends up dictating religious "values".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 10, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is truly ironic about these people is the 'love" they have for the unborn and the way it INSTANTLY changes as soon as they are birthed . Then it's the old Republican creed of you're on your own . No voting in favor of providing Health care or Head Start , sorry I want my Tax CUT thank you .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 10, 2007 9:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for killing sex education, education is already messed up in the deep south and I'd hate to see it worsen like that.
Keeping the sex divide going like this can only be a greater boon to the corporatists who fund the anti-"abortion" fundies ever so happy to pour in more SLAVE labor any way possible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Arlene on Oct 10, 2007 9:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The protesters gathering at clinics to harass and intimidate women trying to enter remind me of the protesters that gathered in front of all-white schools after the Brown v. Board of Education decision so they could harass and intimidate Negro students who wanted a better education.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: Ames
» RE: Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: dmaciewski
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgabriel on Oct 10, 2007 10:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you have time during your day to post comments in this or other liberal organs, you have time to pick up the phone, dial the number and leave your message. I don't have my congressional members on speed-dial but I do know how to find their numbers and I do call them. I have a liberal member of the House and two butt-ugly conservative Senators on the national level and reasonably liberal House and Senate members on the state level.
They hear from me at least monthly and sometimes weekly. Hell, even sometimes daily if I get the urge.
My point is: Being committed to something doesn't mean you read articles in Alternet or another progressive site. Being committed to liberal causes means you speak your mind to the people who can use your words to make a difference. You don't have to get out on the streets and protest. You don't have to go down to Mississippi and confront these beasts. All you have to do is talk to your elected office holders.
If enough of you call and voice your concerns, your representatives will "get it." Think your voice won't make a difference? Think you as just one person won't make an impact? Think living in LA stops you from making changes in Mississippi?
Ask a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War whether THEIR voices made a difference in ending the Vietnam War.
Oh, one last comment: The wonderful imagery of the pigs flying out of, well, you know. Absolutely great... {8^>}
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Do what you know is right
Posted by: lepidopteryx
» Why assume that because this is an article about women that we don't contact them?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 10, 2007 10:24 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've found it impossible to engage pro-life Christians in serious discussion on issues such as animal rights (a secular moral philosophy, but one which could use the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion), because these Christians are under the delusion that if they call on Jesus three times (or do anything else in triplicate for that matter), that they're free to do whatever they want.
So I respond accordingly: "Abortion, abortion, abortion."
Namely, if these people aren't going to take my issue seriously, why should I with theirs?
Like Neil Young said in his 1970 song, "Southern Man," which attacked racism: "Don't forget what your good book says."
Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:
"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.
"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he likely did not commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?
"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.
"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."
However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion":
"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice' ? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for blacks Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.
"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice? In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."
On the Democrats-For-Life e-list a few years ago, Louis Shapiro wondered why those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion object to "Choose Life" license plate frames, when the slogan capitulates to the other side by inferring "choice"!
Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote, "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide."
In These Times, a progressive political newspaper in Chicago observed in the late 1980s: "Our reaction to scenes of anti-abortion activists engaging in civil disobedience outside clinics is similar to that of many on the Left: ‘What are THEY doing using OUR tactics? One major factor may be uncomfortable for many of us to admit: that many of them ARE us.’ "
Let's keep the abortion debate as balanced as possible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango **IRONY ALERT**
Posted by: maribelle
» majority support?
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: wamama
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: wamama
» To you fake liberals
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: To you fake liberals
Posted by: vasumurti
» Lots of hot air
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: To you fake liberals
Posted by: Arlene
» fake liberals?!
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: fake liberals?!
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: babs
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: morticia
» Okay! Let's!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Okay! Let's!
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Oct 10, 2007 10:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no possible balance to this debate. It is possible that this issue may tear our country apart before we resolve it. Historically, any group of people who are religious fanatics enough to claim that their view, and only their view, is God's will so they have a right to force you to live their way have only been successfully dealt with in one way...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Oct 10, 2007 1:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The self-proclaimed gatekeepers of morality and virtue are hell bent on seeing women relegated to the status of "child production specialists" and little else. This country has been in steady decline for some time and it seems most people are keen to sit idly by and watch their personal freedoms be stripped of them one by one.
Just remember, when abortion is finally outlawed like it is in many parts of Latin America, you'll really have no one to blame but yourselves. Alternet is great at assembling like minded individuals for pity parties/venting but if anyone can show me one tangible change that has come as a result of these discussions, I'd love to hear about it.
There is no "tomorrow" or "in 2009, things will get better". In case you haven't been paying attention, our president thinks he has a direct line to god and surrounds himself with people who think they talk to Elijah. When it was obvious that Iraq had indeed become a quagmire a la Vietnam, over 50% of American fuckwads re-elected this sick asshole. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??
America's Conservative composition is set and will not be altered - not for anything! Ever try carrying on an intelligent conversation with a born again Christian? These people (sadly, a small minority at that) may diverge from Bush slightly on matters as insignificant as a genocidal war in Iraq, i.e. they want "To bring home Da Troops" but a zebra cannot change its stripes and those stripes, in this instance, are intolerant and archaic views on abortion, among others.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 10, 2007 2:27 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) How do you feel about 12 million children living in poverty in this country? What are you doing to alleviate this situation?
2) How do you reconcile your belief that these women are compelled to have unwanted children, while so many of you are in favor of cutting welfare programs, opposing an increase in the minimum wage, housing programs for the low income, paid maternity leave that other countries have--all things which would help these women support the child you insist that she has to have? Why is a ruthless economic Darwinism so central to your values system?
3) Why aren't you applying your energies to lobbying for National Health Care? Wouldn't that be of tremendous benefit to these single moms and their kids?
4) Why are too many of you in favor of the Iraq war and a potential war with Iran?
5) If you believe so strongly in "the sanctity of life", why aren't you protesting capital punishment? Or strongly condemned the murder of doctors? Or protesting our government's support of murderous and oppressive regimes in the world? How do you reconcile your right-wing church's support of Rios Mott--the Butcher of Guatemala--in the 1980's?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: tough questions for the anti-abortion people
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: tough questions for the anti-abortion people*RIGHTWINGER PLEASE ANSWER THOUGHTFULLY**
Posted by: maribelle
» real liberals
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: real liberals **REBUTTAL TO VASUMURTI**
Posted by: maribelle
» reasonable restrictions
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: reasonable restrictions
Posted by: zooeyhall
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dayenta on Oct 10, 2007 3:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Oct 10, 2007 3:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a new one on me. Why should it matter?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Three?
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Three?
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: Three?
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Three?
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: stopping teenage boys from masturbating
Posted by: Einherjar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cakerage on Oct 11, 2007 6:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That women should be able to give consent to the massive and sometimes dangerous changes to her body that result from pregnancy.
In her words:
"If consent [to pregnancy] is absent, what the fetus does to a woman-however unconsciously-constitutes serious injury.
"Indeed, the law defines injury in terms of consent: if a surgeon performs a life-saving operation on a patient who did not consent to that operation, in the eyes of the law, that surgeon has seriously injured that patient. So, too, with a nonconsensual pregnancy.
"If a woman does not consent to the massive transformations of her body and liberty that result from the fetus, she is being seriously injured by the fetus-even though it does so unconsciously.
"Thus, a pregnant woman who does not consent to pregnancy is similarly situated with other victims who are injured as a result of nonconsensual intrusions in their bodily integrity or liberty by mentally incompetent entities."
And so women should be allowed to have abortions as self-defense from serious bodily injury.
More here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Abortion as self-defense
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 11, 2007 9:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moreover, the death penalty does not deter violent crime:
"Most people who murder do not see beyond their action; they kill quickly in moments of great fear or emotional stress and under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When the crime is premeditated, the individual rarely believes he or she will be apprehended or executed…in 1976, the United States Supreme Court found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime. The United Nations came to similar conclusions."
According to Amnesty International USA, capital punishment tends to discriminate against minorities and the poor. In the United States since 1972, over 65 percent of the people on death row have been unskilled, service, or domestic workers, while 60 percent were unemployed at the time of their crimes.
"In the United States," reports Amnesty International USA, "blacks and other minorities face a much greater likelihood of execution than whites similarly charged...The victim’s race still factors heavily in determining the offender’s punishment. In Texas, blacks who kill whites are six times more likely to receive the death sentence than those with black victims. In Florida, black offenders who murder whites are forty times more likely than whites who kill blacks to end up on death row."
Responding to the concept of "an eye for an eye," Amnesty International USA asks, "If capital punishment is appropriate because it takes a life for a life, why doesn’t the government also burn the arsonist’s home and rape the rapist? Because justice does not mean punishment that imitates the crime." Amnesty International USA states further that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.
United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment… While police and law enforcement officials are the strongest advocates of capital punishment, the evidence is overwhelming that police are no safer in communities that retain the sanction than in those that have abolished it. It also is evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society."
United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once argued against capital punishment, saying, "The calculated killing of a human being involves, by its very nature, an absolute denial of the executed person's humanity."
Justice Brennan claimed the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet the 5th Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crime" and says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
This clearly implies that persons can be deprived of their right to life, but only under due process of law. Capital punishment, therefore, is constitutional, and, ultimately, the only way death penalty opponents can correct this apparent injustice is through a Constitutional Amendment.
Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death."
Religious leaders throughout the world have taken a stand against capital punishment. Leading Jewish organizations, Protestant denominations, and the United States Catholic Bishops Conference all oppose the death penalty.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 11, 2007 5:11 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a wave of religious fundamentalism sweeps America. Blacks are lynched, gays are bashed, etc., but the public is told that whether or not these minorities have any rights is a subjective religious belief--a matter of "choice."
Would progressives take it seriously? Even on the Left there are moral absolutes!
Gays Against Abortion, now known as PLAGAL (the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) was formed in 1991. They issued a statement:
"We acknowledge that, from conception, the fetus is a human being entitled to basic rights, including the right to life. We hold that abortion denies that right and destroys that human being. We know first hand, from homophobia, what it is to have our rights denied...Like homophobia, abortion tries to get rid of the persons who are considered undesirable…We volunteer time and energy to pro-life pregnancy centers and pro-life agencies..."
Similarly, in the May 1992 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, in an article entitled, "Coming Out of the Closet for Life," Donna Marie Kearney wrote:
"It is difficult to understand why so many gay and lesbian people can support the so-called woman’s right’ to abortion. While living as oppressed people, they are blind to the subversion of the rights of the unborn, the weakest and most powerless among us."
Kearney is a lesbian Christian peace activist, a member of the Faith and Resistance Community, and has been arrested in protest against nuclear weapons storage, and arrested along with Daniel Berrigan and others for trespassing at a Planned Parenthood building.
The abortion controversy is analogous to the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, both the right and the Left came to agree that the war was wrong; they merely advocated different strategies for ending it. The real losers on this issue are the 1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide and the spineless politicians afraid to speak out against the madness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: PLAGAL **GAYS WILL NEVER FACE ABORTION!**
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luzmejor on Oct 11, 2007 8:28 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-abortion groupers have merely traded in their obvious hatred of non-whites and foreigners for a new group of victims they hope will be easier to attack. That group is other women and their minority children.
They are using what I call their sex-cult religion, that double-edged sword they hope will convincingly portray themselves as the pure and wholesome women they are not, and the women they hate as jezebels, prostitutes and lawbreakers, so they can put them in jail permanently.
The whole thing is a monstrous confidence game to raise funds and get publicity for their arcane religious views.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» women and children
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ames on Oct 11, 2007 11:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the main problem i see with anti-abortion groups is that they are organised and they are passionate. after growing up in a rabidly pentecostal church, i know damn well what they're capable of. they go to church every week and get these views reinforced and encouraged. they have church and other networks which make it easy to organise things like demonstrations. they even have the time and resources (in large part sadly because many of the protesters are women who live the life of the church and stay at home looking after the kiddies) to do research on what is legal, what they can get away with etc.
it makes me sad, and it makes me angry. how i direct that sadness and anger back at anti-abortionists and their enablers in the most effective way.... that i don't know...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "many of the protestors are women"
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Arlene on Oct 12, 2007 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wives, daughters and girlfriends of the privileged and politically and medically connected have access to abortion in a medical setting, just as they did before Roe v. Wade and continue to have in states with draconian restrictions that freeze out the poor and isolated.
As a previous poster noted, it is helpful to know which lawmakers are responsible for the restrictive laws so that we can let them know about our stories even if we don't live in that particular state. One sordid story may not change a lawmaker's mind, but a critical mass of them might. As I told one of them from Mississippi not too long ago: Meet the New South, same as the Old South.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» class issue/contraception
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: class issue/contraception
Posted by: Arlene
Comments are closed-
Posted by: lepidopteryx on Oct 10, 2007 4:59 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He isn't crazy about piercings or tattos, but he knows I like them, and it's my body, and he has no say in the matter.
I recall several decades ago, hearing a neighbor of ours, after having given birth to her sixth child, tell my mom that she had wanted to have her tubes tied after this one, but that her doctor had refused unless her husband agreed to it, "because he might want more children." Her husband refused to give consent because they were Catholic. She informed him that if he wanted any more children, he could damn well figure out a way to get himself pregnant, because there would be no more sex until her tubes were tied.
The very idea that a woman needs her husband's permission for any medical procedure is beyond asinine.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I'll bet the same doc would have given a vasectomy to that husband
Posted by: natasha42
» The article you linked to... WOW... disturbing
Posted by: defrag
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: TheNamelessCity
» **MEN ARE IN THIS DISCUSSION ONLY AS A COURTESY--YOU DON"T GET TO DECIDE**
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: Tombo
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: lepidopteryx
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: You have to be fucking kidding me!
Posted by: idamonster
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 10, 2007 6:34 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Tactics "borrowed from the KKK"
Posted by: Nugeman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 10, 2007 7:15 AM
Current rating: 4 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While proclaiming their love for the "unborn" they at the same time are loudly proclaiming the Rush Limbaugh soundbites about the need to eliminate welfare, AFDC, food stamps, the minimum wage. National Healthcare, which might help these single moms, is anathema to the right-to-life crowd.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: dmb8762
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: wamama
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: maribelle
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: "Right to Life" movement paradoxes
Posted by: dmaciewski
» then why aren't you doing more to oppose these wackos?
Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: then why aren't you doing more to oppose these wackos?
Posted by: dmaciewski
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Liberal Hippie on Oct 10, 2007 7:20 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a woman, I know that it should be a basic, fundamental right to choose when to have children, when NOT to have children, and how many children to have period. Forcing women to carry pregnancies that they are not willing or prepared to handle can be a lifelong devastating event. There are physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, and financial ramifications to having a child, and those burdens should not be overlooked when choosing to have one or not. To be fair, I think that everyone who is thinking about becoming a parent needs to ponder that long and hard even before conception.
These clinics, and their health care providers, are facing constant and possibly life threatening harassment. And yet it's perfectly legal, from a hostile legislature down to the local police, no one will intervene. A shirt with the names of the war dead is illegal to wear in five states, but what they endure is a-okay? Ugh...I need to go cry.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: this hurts my heart
Posted by: deaudonnee
» RE: this hurts my heart
Posted by: Liberal Hippie
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rinthy on Oct 10, 2007 7:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rinthy
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: boydranchitos on Oct 10, 2007 7:36 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came to work inside at one clinic. We provided the Compulsory Gestation forces with abortion on demand w/o comment. They would need to sneak in, because they didn't want their facsistic friends to know they were using our services.
I had to ask them, why were abortion foes seeking the very rights they sought to deny others for themselves, for their relatives?
The answer never varied in distilled content: ALWAYS theme and variation on
"it's different if it's ME/MY daughter/MY sister.... etc. ad nauseum.
And now their friends in government behave the same way.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Clinic Escorts... Thanks for doing that job!
Posted by: mombot
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 10, 2007 7:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Note that in Catholic Italy in the 19th century, a disproportionate number of out of wedlock female infants died as compared to males. Interesting how economics ends up dictating religious "values".
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JSquercia on Oct 10, 2007 8:45 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is truly ironic about these people is the 'love" they have for the unborn and the way it INSTANTLY changes as soon as they are birthed . Then it's the old Republican creed of you're on your own . No voting in favor of providing Health care or Head Start , sorry I want my Tax CUT thank you .
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 10, 2007 9:16 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As for killing sex education, education is already messed up in the deep south and I'd hate to see it worsen like that.
Keeping the sex divide going like this can only be a greater boon to the corporatists who fund the anti-"abortion" fundies ever so happy to pour in more SLAVE labor any way possible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Arlene on Oct 10, 2007 9:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The protesters gathering at clinics to harass and intimidate women trying to enter remind me of the protesters that gathered in front of all-white schools after the Brown v. Board of Education decision so they could harass and intimidate Negro students who wanted a better education.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: Ames
» RE: Lifers not pro-life just anti-abortion
Posted by: dmaciewski
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgabriel on Oct 10, 2007 10:08 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you have time during your day to post comments in this or other liberal organs, you have time to pick up the phone, dial the number and leave your message. I don't have my congressional members on speed-dial but I do know how to find their numbers and I do call them. I have a liberal member of the House and two butt-ugly conservative Senators on the national level and reasonably liberal House and Senate members on the state level.
They hear from me at least monthly and sometimes weekly. Hell, even sometimes daily if I get the urge.
My point is: Being committed to something doesn't mean you read articles in Alternet or another progressive site. Being committed to liberal causes means you speak your mind to the people who can use your words to make a difference. You don't have to get out on the streets and protest. You don't have to go down to Mississippi and confront these beasts. All you have to do is talk to your elected office holders.
If enough of you call and voice your concerns, your representatives will "get it." Think your voice won't make a difference? Think you as just one person won't make an impact? Think living in LA stops you from making changes in Mississippi?
Ask a member of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War whether THEIR voices made a difference in ending the Vietnam War.
Oh, one last comment: The wonderful imagery of the pigs flying out of, well, you know. Absolutely great... {8^>}
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Do what you know is right
Posted by: lepidopteryx
» Why assume that because this is an article about women that we don't contact them?
Posted by: Beck
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 10, 2007 10:24 AM
Current rating: 3 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've found it impossible to engage pro-life Christians in serious discussion on issues such as animal rights (a secular moral philosophy, but one which could use the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion), because these Christians are under the delusion that if they call on Jesus three times (or do anything else in triplicate for that matter), that they're free to do whatever they want.
So I respond accordingly: "Abortion, abortion, abortion."
Namely, if these people aren't going to take my issue seriously, why should I with theirs?
Like Neil Young said in his 1970 song, "Southern Man," which attacked racism: "Don't forget what your good book says."
Dr. Bernard Nathanson (co-founder of NARAL; a physician who presided over some 60,000 abortions before changing sides on the issue), wrote in his 1979 book, Aborting America:
"...the Right-to-Lifers are not in favor of all 'life' under all circumstances. They are not in the forefront of the save-the-seals crusade. They are not devotees of Albert Schweitzer's 'reverence for life,' or its equivalent in Eastern religions, in which the extinction of cows or flies somehow violates the sanctity of the cosmos.
"Turning to the human species, they do not necessarily oppose the taking of life via capital punishment. Where were they when Caryl Chessman was executed for a crime he likely did not commit--and a rape at that, not a murder?
"They were likely not notably in the opposition while the United States was sacrificing lives on both sides of a questionable war in Viet Nam.
"They are not 'pro-life'; they are simply anti-abortion."
However, Dr. Nathanson goes on to say about those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion":
"This is the Madison Avenue euphemism of the other side. Who could possibly be opposed to something so benign as 'choice' ? The answer is: Almost anyone--depending. The diehard opposition to civil rights and public accommodations for blacks Americans in the '50s and '60s was 'pro-choice' with a vengeance. Some whites wanted the 'right' to serve hamburgers or rent hotel rooms to whomever they wished.
"Most of us now oppose the concept of choice in such ugly claims. The true question is, What choice is being offered, and should society sanction that choice? In any honest discussion we must focus upon what is being chosen, without hiding behind the slogan."
On the Democrats-For-Life e-list a few years ago, Louis Shapiro wondered why those who prefer to be called "pro-choice" rather than pro-abortion object to "Choose Life" license plate frames, when the slogan capitulates to the other side by inferring "choice"!
Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote, "It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed," because the arguments in support of abortion "could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide."
In These Times, a progressive political newspaper in Chicago observed in the late 1980s: "Our reaction to scenes of anti-abortion activists engaging in civil disobedience outside clinics is similar to that of many on the Left: ‘What are THEY doing using OUR tactics? One major factor may be uncomfortable for many of us to admit: that many of them ARE us.’ "
Let's keep the abortion debate as balanced as possible.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: Are kidding?! It takes two to tango **IRONY ALERT**
Posted by: maribelle
» majority support?
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: wamama
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: wamama
» To you fake liberals
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: To you fake liberals
Posted by: vasumurti
» Lots of hot air
Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: To you fake liberals
Posted by: Arlene
» fake liberals?!
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: fake liberals?!
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: babs
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: morticia
» Okay! Let's!
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Okay! Let's!
Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: keep it balanced
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on Oct 10, 2007 10:49 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no possible balance to this debate. It is possible that this issue may tear our country apart before we resolve it. Historically, any group of people who are religious fanatics enough to claim that their view, and only their view, is God's will so they have a right to force you to live their way have only been successfully dealt with in one way...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: MAD on Oct 10, 2007 1:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The self-proclaimed gatekeepers of morality and virtue are hell bent on seeing women relegated to the status of "child production specialists" and little else. This country has been in steady decline for some time and it seems most people are keen to sit idly by and watch their personal freedoms be stripped of them one by one.
Just remember, when abortion is finally outlawed like it is in many parts of Latin America, you'll really have no one to blame but yourselves. Alternet is great at assembling like minded individuals for pity parties/venting but if anyone can show me one tangible change that has come as a result of these discussions, I'd love to hear about it.
There is no "tomorrow" or "in 2009, things will get better". In case you haven't been paying attention, our president thinks he has a direct line to god and surrounds himself with people who think they talk to Elijah. When it was obvious that Iraq had indeed become a quagmire a la Vietnam, over 50% of American fuckwads re-elected this sick asshole. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU??
America's Conservative composition is set and will not be altered - not for anything! Ever try carrying on an intelligent conversation with a born again Christian? These people (sadly, a small minority at that) may diverge from Bush slightly on matters as insignificant as a genocidal war in Iraq, i.e. they want "To bring home Da Troops" but a zebra cannot change its stripes and those stripes, in this instance, are intolerant and archaic views on abortion, among others.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zooeyhall on Oct 10, 2007 2:27 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) How do you feel about 12 million children living in poverty in this country? What are you doing to alleviate this situation?
2) How do you reconcile your belief that these women are compelled to have unwanted children, while so many of you are in favor of cutting welfare programs, opposing an increase in the minimum wage, housing programs for the low income, paid maternity leave that other countries have--all things which would help these women support the child you insist that she has to have? Why is a ruthless economic Darwinism so central to your values system?
3) Why aren't you applying your energies to lobbying for National Health Care? Wouldn't that be of tremendous benefit to these single moms and their kids?
4) Why are too many of you in favor of the Iraq war and a potential war with Iran?
5) If you believe so strongly in "the sanctity of life", why aren't you protesting capital punishment? Or strongly condemned the murder of doctors? Or protesting our government's support of murderous and oppressive regimes in the world? How do you reconcile your right-wing church's support of Rios Mott--the Butcher of Guatemala--in the 1980's?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: tough questions for the anti-abortion people
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: tough questions for the anti-abortion people*RIGHTWINGER PLEASE ANSWER THOUGHTFULLY**
Posted by: maribelle
» real liberals
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: real liberals **REBUTTAL TO VASUMURTI**
Posted by: maribelle
» reasonable restrictions
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: reasonable restrictions
Posted by: zooeyhall
Comments are closed-
Posted by: dayenta on Oct 10, 2007 3:12 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Oct 10, 2007 3:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a new one on me. Why should it matter?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Three?
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: Three?
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: Three?
Posted by: morticia
» RE: Three?
Posted by: angryyoungwoman
» RE: stopping teenage boys from masturbating
Posted by: Einherjar
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cakerage on Oct 11, 2007 6:29 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That women should be able to give consent to the massive and sometimes dangerous changes to her body that result from pregnancy.
In her words:
"If consent [to pregnancy] is absent, what the fetus does to a woman-however unconsciously-constitutes serious injury.
"Indeed, the law defines injury in terms of consent: if a surgeon performs a life-saving operation on a patient who did not consent to that operation, in the eyes of the law, that surgeon has seriously injured that patient. So, too, with a nonconsensual pregnancy.
"If a woman does not consent to the massive transformations of her body and liberty that result from the fetus, she is being seriously injured by the fetus-even though it does so unconsciously.
"Thus, a pregnant woman who does not consent to pregnancy is similarly situated with other victims who are injured as a result of nonconsensual intrusions in their bodily integrity or liberty by mentally incompetent entities."
And so women should be allowed to have abortions as self-defense from serious bodily injury.
More here.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Abortion as self-defense
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Oct 11, 2007 9:38 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 11, 2007 1:01 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Moreover, the death penalty does not deter violent crime:
"Most people who murder do not see beyond their action; they kill quickly in moments of great fear or emotional stress and under the influence of drugs or alcohol. When the crime is premeditated, the individual rarely believes he or she will be apprehended or executed…in 1976, the United States Supreme Court found no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters violent crime. The United Nations came to similar conclusions."
According to Amnesty International USA, capital punishment tends to discriminate against minorities and the poor. In the United States since 1972, over 65 percent of the people on death row have been unskilled, service, or domestic workers, while 60 percent were unemployed at the time of their crimes.
"In the United States," reports Amnesty International USA, "blacks and other minorities face a much greater likelihood of execution than whites similarly charged...The victim’s race still factors heavily in determining the offender’s punishment. In Texas, blacks who kill whites are six times more likely to receive the death sentence than those with black victims. In Florida, black offenders who murder whites are forty times more likely than whites who kill blacks to end up on death row."
Responding to the concept of "an eye for an eye," Amnesty International USA asks, "If capital punishment is appropriate because it takes a life for a life, why doesn’t the government also burn the arsonist’s home and rape the rapist? Because justice does not mean punishment that imitates the crime." Amnesty International USA states further that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment.
United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed: "The death penalty is no more effective a deterrent than life imprisonment… While police and law enforcement officials are the strongest advocates of capital punishment, the evidence is overwhelming that police are no safer in communities that retain the sanction than in those that have abolished it. It also is evident that the burden of capital punishment falls upon the poor, the ignorant, and the underprivileged members of society."
United States Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once argued against capital punishment, saying, "The calculated killing of a human being involves, by its very nature, an absolute denial of the executed person's humanity."
Justice Brennan claimed the 8th Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishment." Yet the 5th Amendment refers to "capital or otherwise infamous crime" and says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
This clearly implies that persons can be deprived of their right to life, but only under due process of law. Capital punishment, therefore, is constitutional, and, ultimately, the only way death penalty opponents can correct this apparent injustice is through a Constitutional Amendment.
Attacking capital punishment, the early church father Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, wrote: "Christians are not allowed to kill, it is not permitted for the guiltless to put even the guilty to death."
Religious leaders throughout the world have taken a stand against capital punishment. Leading Jewish organizations, Protestant denominations, and the United States Catholic Bishops Conference all oppose the death penalty.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vasumurti on Oct 11, 2007 5:11 PM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine a wave of religious fundamentalism sweeps America. Blacks are lynched, gays are bashed, etc., but the public is told that whether or not these minorities have any rights is a subjective religious belief--a matter of "choice."
Would progressives take it seriously? Even on the Left there are moral absolutes!
Gays Against Abortion, now known as PLAGAL (the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians) was formed in 1991. They issued a statement:
"We acknowledge that, from conception, the fetus is a human being entitled to basic rights, including the right to life. We hold that abortion denies that right and destroys that human being. We know first hand, from homophobia, what it is to have our rights denied...Like homophobia, abortion tries to get rid of the persons who are considered undesirable…We volunteer time and energy to pro-life pregnancy centers and pro-life agencies..."
Similarly, in the May 1992 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, in an article entitled, "Coming Out of the Closet for Life," Donna Marie Kearney wrote:
"It is difficult to understand why so many gay and lesbian people can support the so-called woman’s right’ to abortion. While living as oppressed people, they are blind to the subversion of the rights of the unborn, the weakest and most powerless among us."
Kearney is a lesbian Christian peace activist, a member of the Faith and Resistance Community, and has been arrested in protest against nuclear weapons storage, and arrested along with Daniel Berrigan and others for trespassing at a Planned Parenthood building.
The abortion controversy is analogous to the Vietnam War. By the late 1960s, both the right and the Left came to agree that the war was wrong; they merely advocated different strategies for ending it. The real losers on this issue are the 1.5 million annual victims of prenatal homicide and the spineless politicians afraid to speak out against the madness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: PLAGAL **GAYS WILL NEVER FACE ABORTION!**
Posted by: maribelle
Comments are closed-
Posted by: luzmejor on Oct 11, 2007 8:28 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-abortion groupers have merely traded in their obvious hatred of non-whites and foreigners for a new group of victims they hope will be easier to attack. That group is other women and their minority children.
They are using what I call their sex-cult religion, that double-edged sword they hope will convincingly portray themselves as the pure and wholesome women they are not, and the women they hate as jezebels, prostitutes and lawbreakers, so they can put them in jail permanently.
The whole thing is a monstrous confidence game to raise funds and get publicity for their arcane religious views.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» women and children
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ames on Oct 11, 2007 11:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the main problem i see with anti-abortion groups is that they are organised and they are passionate. after growing up in a rabidly pentecostal church, i know damn well what they're capable of. they go to church every week and get these views reinforced and encouraged. they have church and other networks which make it easy to organise things like demonstrations. they even have the time and resources (in large part sadly because many of the protesters are women who live the life of the church and stay at home looking after the kiddies) to do research on what is legal, what they can get away with etc.
it makes me sad, and it makes me angry. how i direct that sadness and anger back at anti-abortionists and their enablers in the most effective way.... that i don't know...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» "many of the protestors are women"
Posted by: vasumurti
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Arlene on Oct 12, 2007 7:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The wives, daughters and girlfriends of the privileged and politically and medically connected have access to abortion in a medical setting, just as they did before Roe v. Wade and continue to have in states with draconian restrictions that freeze out the poor and isolated.
As a previous poster noted, it is helpful to know which lawmakers are responsible for the restrictive laws so that we can let them know about our stories even if we don't live in that particular state. One sordid story may not change a lawmaker's mind, but a critical mass of them might. As I told one of them from Mississippi not too long ago: Meet the New South, same as the Old South.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» class issue/contraception
Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: class issue/contraception
Posted by: Arlene
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




