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
  • 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.

The Anti-Choice Movement's Bag of Dirty Tricks

By Jeanine Plant, AlterNet. Posted November 1, 2007.


The documentary Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion offers a tough lesson: that rational, scientific appeals pale in comparison to the blood-and-guts emotionality of the anti-choice movement.

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

More stories by Jeanine Plant

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion, the recent documentary by Stephen Fell and Will Thompson, is an eye-opening, must-see portrait of the pro-life movement's win-at-all-costs philosophy. It goes beyond the movement's robotic way of staying on-message and reveals anti-choicers' unrepentant, and often subtle, employment of dirty tricks. What makes these tricks so disturbing -- and, arguably, effective -- is that most of them aren't coming from extremists perpetuating bald-faced lies. Instead, it's the reasonable-seeming, public-relations-type woman who pushes misinformation about a link between abortion and breast cancer. It's the young student with a Northface backpack who displays horrifying visuals of aborted fetuses on university campuses. It's the nonthreatening, formerly pro-choice 19-year-old who shares her own heartbreaking abortion story.

In its even-handed depiction of the movement's moderates and extremists, this film offers one bitter-pill lesson: appeals to science and reason, however ethical, simply do not influence the masses as well as blood-and-guts emotionality. For example, in response to anti-choice images of broken fetal arms strewn in blood, reproductive justice activists show a wire hanger next to a smiling picture of Joan Crawford. This comes across as sterile, diminutive and polite. By contrast, a no-holds-barred approach would be an image of a woman who had died during a back-alley abortion. A corpse.

With the fright of South Dakota and the Supreme Court's ban on "partial birth" abortion, this is an important documentary that all progressives should see. But it's particularly critical that reproductive justice activists, who see the foreboding reversal of Roe etched into every new parental notification law, watch the film to gain whatever upper hand they might in this vicious battle over women's lives. Upon seeing this film, some feminists may ask themselves if they might be more ruthless in their fights against anti-choice propagandists.

What this film makes clear is that the fight should be easier given the sanctimonious misogynists behind anti-choice rhetoric who pretend to care for women's well-being. In a revealing scene that takes place at Focus on the Family Headquarters, we witness a group of young students eager to take up the anti-choice mantle. These are students who, as part of their curriculum, need to learn how to appear compassionate toward a young woman who has been raped. Forget actual sympathy. The group is watching a video of a young woman who publicly admits to having been raped at 13 years old and subsequently having had an abortion. As they pause to critique the scene of two men squabbling with this young woman about the "unborn child's" DNA, none of the women students in the seminar balk at their cruelty. Instead, they listen as the male teacher says first that there should be a woman there to validate this young woman's trauma. Then, after they've disarmed her with their kindness, they should move in for the kill and ask why the child should pay for the crimes of the father. That they need to "learn not to condescend" tells us much of what we need to know about this group.

This scene comes at the very beginning of the film, effectively upping the ante for what we're about to see next: the "Justice for All" exhibit, a gruesome, three-sided, 18-foot-tall billboard photomontage of bloodied aborted fetuses, holocaust survivors, and executions erected on college campuses since 2001. Also underwritten by deep-pocketed Focus on the Family, the display provokes all sorts of reactions, from indifference to fury. We meet two male students at Colorado State University who vehemently argue with the students staffing the exhibit. One student asks why, if they're so anti-abortion, they aren't handing out condoms and birth-control pills to teens, to which the anti-choicers say nothing. That anti-choice proponents are at base anti-sex is not news, but that those groomed to be pro-life spokespersons had no pat, gimmicky retort to the issue of birth control exposes an inherent weakness in their machine.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: abortion, antichoice, prochoice, reproductive justice, reproductive rights, unborn in the usa

Jeanine Plant is a New York-based freelance writer.

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:
Misunderstanding the "Pro-Life" Movement
Posted by: Marshalldoc on Nov 1, 2007 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for a well-written and informative article.

One issue I never see discussed in the context of the “Pro-Life’s” opposition to any form of family planning, regardless of how reasonable it may be, is what I perceive to be the central issue in their argument - their single-minded pursuit of the salvation of human souls.

One historical item that comes up repeatedly in the christian conquests of the last half-millennium is the driving desire to convert the conquered and ‘save their souls for christ’ regardless of the human cost. This drive even leading to the barbaric and bizarre practice of converting newborn MesoAmerican babies prior to bashing their brains out following Cortez’ conquest of the Aztecs, in order to 'save their immortal souls for christ'.

In the same fashion, current christian leaders (the pope, in particular) call for the absolute abandonment of any form of birth control regardless of the economic state of any population, leading to the seeming paradox of uncontrolled and soaring birthrates in countries that lead the world in the numbers of impoverished, malnourished, and uneducated children. To those who put their faith in ‘the word of god’, however, no amount of suffering on Earth is of any concern because the real issue is the salvation of the ‘immortal soul’. This obsession even overrides any potential concern for global warming and overpopulation because, again, it is only ‘of this Earth’.

Until the pro-Choice movement understands the real terms upon which this issue is being decided and attacks the fundamental (and how!) issue of the insertion of irrational beliefs in the edicts of so-called ‘sacred texts’ and huckster ‘holy men’ into the conduct of the body politic, it will continue to always be a step behind and a day late.

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

Words, words, words.
Posted by: talkville on Nov 1, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Engels, in "The Holy Family" discusses a French novel of those days -- the early 19th Century. In this novel, a character commits a heinous crime. The Public Administrator of the State, following established procedures, would have this person just taken out and shot-- period. But a religious man, a priest, intervenes and, instead, chooses as punishment to blind this person and thus 'put him into darkness' so he can focus wholly on 'his own soul'. He wants to make very sure this man as fully as possible becomes aware of his crime and that he SUFFER, and the more the better!. Thus, not wanting to simply restore the balance and the order of the society, he wants what? SUFFERING besides! He relishes in the thought!!

Each individual in human society, like it or not, has a life-cycle. Conception, development then death. The word 'abortion' which is a termination of development at a particular point, becomes related by these people with words like 'murder' and 'killing'; that is, depriving of development at particular points. So, they would FORCE the prohibition, in an ABSOLUTE way of this termination from conception (?? ie: mis-carriages etc as exceptions!) through birth.

Something Magical, Mythical, positively Mysterious occurs at the moment of birth however. These very people who would impose this prohibition suddenly transform their zeal, their 'reasonableness' their tactics, their strategies into a completely antithetical urge and agenda: "We are against any provisions public welfare", "we are against any forms of taxation", "we are against any form of general health-care provision", "you have only yourself to BLAME for your predicament" -- there's the general figure of the situation.

So, here we have now a single mother, living in a barely liveable apartment and behind a couple of months on rent, if lucky a high-school education, a minimum wage job. Now with an infant however. She HAD decided to terminate the pregnancy, but between the laws, the price of the procedure, and all these "good people" helping her so much with her decision, she had the infant.

But the infant needs food, needs clothing, needs caring for. "She's got no-one to blame but herself" make do as you can!. The infant's got asthma and needs medicine. "She's got no-one to blame but herself". Why, "it's about personal responsibility", don't you know. The infant develops -- malnourished, sickly, full of 'behavioral problems', 'un-manageable', with 'learning dis-abilities'. "It's the parent's fault!!", all these good people yell; "she's got no-one to blame but herself". The child grows up a bit, is caught with a bit of cocaine, and off he (or she) goes to the prison-house ("three squares a day and plenty of chaplains to talk to if wanted). After release, perhaps he or she manages to commit a more 'heinous' crime -- "only the Death Penalty all these good people scream; nothing else will do!"

Not even being this dire, the principle remains: who was "responsible"? The woman who had decided and wanted an "abortion" or the good people who talked her out of it and decided on the "abortion" later on in the form of a death penalty?

"Abortion" washes into "murder" as "murder" washes into "abortion". As a word-game, it's great to pass the time. As a reality? .... not so much.

So, restore balances and harmonies to society? Or SUFFER? In the above 'little scene', we now would have not only ONE but TWO who suffered!! What a gain for those who "save souls"!!

Oh, by the way, the issue of Torture is also on the table these days!! Where ARE all these good people on this I wonder?

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

what the heck is "emotionally dishonest"?
Posted by: supercrisp on Nov 1, 2007 3:51 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm pro-choice, don't get me wrong. But it's pretty insensitive and jerky to dismiss someone's sorrow at having aborted a fetus as "emotionally dishonest." People have regrets, and it's too bad that this particular regret is useful to anti-abortion crusaders. But that's no excuse to demean this person's or any person's sadness at having made what they feel to be a wrong decision of this magnitude. And dismissing this person's feelings doesn't exactly help the pro-choice position.

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

» both sides now Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: both sides now Posted by: morticia
the nuts and bolts of Roe.....
Posted by: ellie on Nov 1, 2007 4:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
actually, Roe is all about personal privacy and personal responsibility to make decisions about your own body... just read what the Supremes actually said when they up-held the Roe decision in the first place....

if we loose Roe, no one, male or female will have the right to make decisions about their own body, including your loved ones and kids, let alone the abortion question....

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

STOP using the word "abortion" and cut to the chase.
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 1, 2007 5:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The issue is about a woman's safety, especially in the case of rape and incest, and that's where the framing needs to start. If a woman's life is in serious danger and she is bound to die if she doesn't get the abortion performed, there is NO WAY the child will ever make it so it's a lose-lose on both the mother and child if she doesn't have that abortion performed. If on the other hand only the child's life is in danger, a potential miscarriage by the way, you can thank the "conservatives" for doing away with safety altogether which is already more than enough to tell you that the cons are NOT pro-life as they claim.

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

» you can do better than that hun Posted by: Iconoclast421
» FEELING BETTER? Posted by: Iconoclast421
"We learn that not all pro-lifers are uneducated, backwater rednecks"
Posted by: reevolve on Nov 1, 2007 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? You learned this watching this film? You may want to try leaving New York from time to time.

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

I Refuse to Sell Used Cars! (But let's keep the debate balanced.)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 1, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.”

---Declaration of Geneva
World Medical Association
September, 1948

“The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.”

---A Declaration of the Rights of the Child
United Nations General Assembly
1959

“Is birth control an abortion?”

“Definitely not. An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”

---Planned Parenthood pamphlet
August 1963

“Every person has the right to have his life respected, this right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

---American Convention on Human Rights in San Jose
November 22, 1969

“The reverence of each and every human life has been the keystone of Western medicine... it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra-uterine. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put forth under socially impeccable auspices.”

---Editorial,
Journal of the California State Medical Association
September 1970

Whether for public relations purposes or her actual heartfelt feelings, Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (now known as Planned Parenthood), expressed opposition to abortion. She lamented the resort of poor people to “the most barbaric method” of family planning, “the killing of babies—infanticide—abortion.” (My Fight for Birth Control, 1931) Sanger told clients in her first birth control clinic that “abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.” (An Autobiography, 1938)

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 liberals’ arguments in support of abortion ‘could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.”

For every white baby killed by abortion, two minority children die. Civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer (1917-1977) insisted, “The methods used to take human lives, such as abortion...amount to genocide. I believe that legal abortion is legal murder.”

According to Hamer, “These are still our children. And we still love these children. And after these babies are born we are not going to disband these children from their families, because these are other lives, they are...and I think these children have a right to live. And I think these mothers have a right to support them in a decent way.”

A pamphlet distributed by Milwaukee S.O.U.L. (Save Our Unwanted Lives) points out that under current U.S. law, corporations are considered legal persons, while humans in prenatal development are denied this moral status.

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

I Refuse to Sell Used Cars! (the sequel)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 1, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed pro-life feminist Rosemary Bottcher in the Tallahassee Democrat.

“It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

Rosemary Bottcher criticized the American Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

“The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

“The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

“The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.

“Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion,” concluded Bottcher. “Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother.”

At a speech before the National Right to Life Convention in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, on July 15, 1982, Reverend Richard John Neuhaus of the Evangelical Lutheran Church said:

“I have a confession to make. I am a liberal. More than that. I am a Democrat...I know that among some pro-life advocates liberalism is almost a dirty word. I know it and I regret it. I know that among others there has been a determined effort to portray the pro-life movement as anti-liberal and, indeed, as reactionary. I know it and I regret it.

“We are today engaged in a great contest over the meaning of liberalism, over the meaning of liberal democracy, indeed over the meaning of America...Will it be an America that is inclusive, embracing the stranger and giving refuge to the homeless?...Will it be a caring America, nurturing the helpless and protecting the vulnerable?

“...The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility...The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right—simply the right to be.

“There is another and authentically liberal vision of an America that is hospitable to the stranger, holding out arms of welcome to those who would share the freedom and opportunity we cherish. ‘Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me/I lift my lamp beside the golden door.’

“The unborn child is the ultimate immigrant...The analogy between the unborn and the immigrant may seem strained. I fear, however, that it is painfully to the point.”

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.

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

» words, words, words Posted by: talkville
A SICK NEED TO CONTROL OTHERS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 1, 2007 7:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The hard core anti-choice crowd is made up mostly of women who had have had 1 or more abortions. Their entire message is intended to control other women who I've noticed are not very bright,but easily influenced and poor. The predators prey on the weak, who need help. They're already frightened. The anti choice group acts according to their instructions from the white males in charge. A sick twisted bunch of women are the problem. Who pays them? Thanks, ANNA

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

Let Your Hypocritical Stars Shine
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Nov 1, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't understand why political parties have to be divided on this issue at all. It's deeply ironic. Because the congress has no business being involved in the abortion debate at all. And the supreme court has no business either, except in deciding the issue of a mother's personal privacy. But that's a conservative point! Conservatives should be for a woman's personal privacy! Liberals should be the ones placing a higher value on the unborn baby! Why is it reversed? Same goes with terri schiavo. The parties were reversed on that too. Liberals should be pro-life (or anti-choice if you prefer). Because it really is the "liberal" position.

There are some legitimate reasons for having an abortion. For that reason Roe V Wade shouldnt be overturned, at least until those specific instances are addressed.

But it is just a plain and simple fact that most abortions are more the fault of britney spears than of some rapist or incestuous family member. If you dont agree with that then sorry you're deluding yourself.

And when I say britney spears you ought to know what I mean. Look back to when she was 17. That's when things really started accelerating down this spiral. The girls noticed how much the guys talked about britney, and so they emulated her. It's not just her either. All the tv shows started oversexualizing adolescents. Much more than they used to. I'm sure part of it was preparation for the Iraq war... how nice it must be that all these defense contractors have their own huge media and entertainment wings. Hell just look at Disney. Goebbels would be jealous....

Yes abstinance from intercourse really is the one true key to reaching common ground on the abortion issue. Not only is it the most logical solution, but it's also the most realistic. Notice I did not say abstinance from sex, merely from intercourse. I think that's where conservatives really mess up their message. The whole "sex can wait" campaign was just a colossal waste of energy. Sex cannot wait. People need to come to grips with the fact that humans are animals and that we dont "become" a human (or an animal) when we turn 18. Sorry it dont work like that.

When a teen sees one of those ads on tv saying "sex can wait", what they're really seeing is "We're just a bunch of fakes and liars, tune us out. Listen to Britney, she knows what it's all about." It is like a big lie. Almost as if done intentionally...

Our culture needs to obliterate the taboo around sex and strengthen the taboo around intercourse. Because intercourse is complicated, serious, and actually quite dangerous on many levels. A hand job and a pearl necklace never killed anyone, born or unborn.

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

Roe v. Wade in danger
Posted by: Democritus on Nov 1, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that Roberts and Alito have joined Scalia and Thomas, and with the Catholic Kennedy on the fence, Roe v. Wade is now in more danger than ever before. Former Justice O'Connor claimed that the decision in Roe v. Wade was flawed, because it was based on the notion of viability--something that might change with advances in medicine, so that even a blastocyst might someday be "viable." In spite of this, O'Connor respected stare decisis, and therefore the precedent set by Roe v. Wade. The new conservative block of Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts don't have the same respect for precedent. So if they can get Kennedy to yield to his religious views, Roe v. Wade might be overturned.

The way for women to fight this battle is to insist, not so much on the notion of privacy, but on the notion of equal protection under the law. If women do not have control of their bodies, then they are being denied the same protection that men have. This is eminently unjust, and that is the point that must be argued against the emotional appeals of the so-called "pro-life" movement.

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

» I Disagree..... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: I Disagree..... Posted by: Democritus
» RE: I Disagree..... Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Roe v. Wade in danger Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: oe v. Wade in danger Posted by: VZEQICVA
How nice it must be
Posted by: ssdd on Nov 1, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to babble on about a decision you've never made, will never have to make, and will never truly know.... unless you've had an abortion yourself. How easy it must be for you to crap out your opinions, argue and argue and argue, but achieve nothing except puffing up your massive ego. You crave the dysfuntion of fighting and protesting, think all circumstances and situations are the same, so it's okay to blanket the issue with "only ifs." But you can't wrap around your fat head the mind-numbingly simple concept that if you've never been in that situation, you just don't know what you'd do, what's right or wrong, or how you'd deal with it.

It would be nice if you all just shut up about something you will never understand.

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

» Oh No. Someone has an opinion that differs from yours. Posted by: Gentrification Through Natural Selection
» High score to Gentrification ... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: How nice it must be Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: How nice it must be Posted by: VZEQICVA
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Nov 1, 2007 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Control over one's own body is a basic human right. Unfortunately, those males who concocted today's mythologies, i.e., religions, resenting as always females' ability to bring forth life--which had it been their own capacity would have been treated with rituals, temples, and who knows what all?--have done their best to keep females subjugated to males. And their sperm.

That is all the anti-abortion, anti-women and -girls movement is about. And the men know it; what is curious is women's willingness to work against their own well-being. But they are told it is the pious, the good thing (think of those unborn "babies" i.e., fetuses, embryos, stray sperm) to turn against your self.

These males who claim to speak for god have no greater access to god than anyone else, and cannot know what their god thinks, and yet they carry on their false hierarchies with success because some people would rather feel "faithful" (and what is faith except belief in something with no validation whatsoever?) than think realistically, rationally, or at all (seems a no-no for Catholics, and Baptists, and all fundamentalists, for instance). The Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, repeated thousands of times by the credulous and the seeking, will become "reality" despite their patent absurdities. Are these pieces of propaganda a sort of litmus test? "If they can swallow that, they'll swallow anything?"...and fall in line and live in fear of some church's dogma, some "god" concocted by males in their own image, or at least in their own fantasies?

You know the one: the micro-managing, psychotic nut of unstable mind, violence, and vengeance. We're told "he's" a loving god, that one who will "strike you dead" on a whim. What a guy! And it's always a guy these days, isn't it? Based on ancient semitic thought, all of it, just tarted up a bit for modern life.

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

The Answer is Biblical
Posted by: lmwilker on Nov 1, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"they should move in for the kill and ask why the child should pay for the crimes of the father."

And I would have answered, "Because it's in the Bible: 'Sins of the fathers shall be visited upon the sons.'"

And why was the woman flashing her mastectomy scar? Is there a link between that action and the discredited "link" between abortion and breast cancer?

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

» RE: The Answer is Biblical Posted by: TheNamelessCity
women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies
Posted by: molliev on Nov 1, 2007 11:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. its a diffrent body that is being destroyed. where is child protective services?

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

The reason for dishonesty is basic cruelty
Posted by: luzmejor on Nov 1, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people miss the point of anti-abortion proponents and
even the most vociferous of them do not realize what is actually driving them to their lying and violent assaults on women at clinics. I spent years listening to their opinions and fears. Everything I have put into quotes has been said to me many times by protesters at clinics and in other public places.

First, look at their rhetoric, which has been repeated in many of these posts. You can see the worry behind their question, "why should the child suffer for the sin of the father?" Aren't you just a little bit surprised that they do not also apply this tender mercy to the raped and pregnant child that stands before them as they say it? (And how can they refer to a rapist as a "father?!")

The answer is this. The very existence of this victimized girl reminds them that they or their children are equally in danger of assault in our callous society. They want and need such vicitms to be legally defineed as adult women who have also sinned, so that they can be accused and punished too. This is required to set victims apart from them, to purposely distinguish themselves from victims in a fundamental way and therefore support their desperate belief that women who are assaulted deserve the punishment (pregnancy) they have received.
They need to believe they and their children are different so they may feel relieved of their own fears of rape and involuntary pregnancy.

After all, they reason, there must be something wrong even with an 8-yr-old who becomes pregnant as a result of abuse. They think the very fact that she is pregnant must mean that she is old enough for bearing children. Even when they know that pregnancy is wrong and dangerous at that early age, they will angrily retort that there are doctors in children's hospitals that could keep her alive. None of them will believe that there is ever a case where even adult women die during chidbirth. If they believed it, their own fears would put them into a high state of anxiety again.
Yes, there is a need to punish everyone who has had any sexual contact without the blessing of their church, even if they were forced. But there are at least 3 other, more driving reasons, for the anti-choicers stance against contraception and abortion.

The first is that the church has the rules they believe everyone else must follow. Nothing must interfere with the supremacy of those rules against "artificial" contraception and abortion. Many parents have actually lived their lives that way and suffered the consequences. They see it as tremendously unfair that other people have been able to "get way with" using birth control and even abortion to limit family size.

The second is that they truly believe that only G-d Himself has made the pregnancy happen, so no person can be allowed to interfere with its natural course, except for care to prevent miscarriages.

The third is that, in their own words, "we were all once a fetus."

That frequent statement/excuse shows that protesters fear the possibility of never having been born at least as much, and perhaps even more, than they fear being killed violently in the present or future.

Every member of society feels the horror of what is happening to our young people who are being deliberately sexualized for commercial profit. Concentrating on the abortion issue is merely another way of deflecting the ugly and unChristian truth about our society from their consciousness. People who react this way, from fear and shame, are both ineffectual and appear to lack genuine faith in their own religion.

A question I always ask of them is whether they really do trust in God to judge and why they do not refuse or attack any other forms of medical research and care besides beginning of life and end-of-life care.

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

Even though I am conservative on most issues,
Posted by: Gentrification Through Natural Selection on Nov 1, 2007 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very much in favor of abortion. Even though I am against universal health care, I would be willing to subsidize abortions. If it were up to me there would be a no cost, no questions asked, abortion clinic in every city. Don’t speak English? We’ll find someone that speaks your language. Don’t have transportation? We’ll send the van to pick you up.

If conservatives do not want their hard earned money going to feed, clothe, and house the people that are to stupid to provide for themselves, they should stop shooting themselves in the foot and trying to force (poor) people to give births to unwanted children.

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

» Well... Posted by: rjgwood
Why do both sides seem to avoid the real issue?
Posted by: Non-Attachment on Nov 1, 2007 1:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The complexity of the issue of abortion come from one issue. You have two lives existing in one body. One is the unborn and the other is the woman. In order for one of these to have their full legal rights, the other has to sacrificed some of or all of theirs. Pro-Life believe that the life of the child is priority; it comes first before the freedom of the mother. Pro-Choice believe that the mother's right to control her body is priority; it comes before the right of the unborn to exist. This is the true issue and the reason why this is not a so simple (regardless of either side saying that it is). When we stop creating straw man arguments turning the other side into misogynists or murders and deal with the truth that either position necessitates a sacrifice and speak on that, then we will be having a constructive discussion instead of having a contest of character assassination.

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

I Had an Abortion...
Posted by: rjgwood on Nov 1, 2007 10:08 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And I'm glad! It was one of the best decisions of my life. I was a sophmore in college, and my boyfriend was a freshman. We lived in Flint, Michigan. There were no jobs, my boyfriend told me he would commit suicide if I had the baby.

The worst part about the experience was the hoard of protesters outside. When I went outside to have a cigarette (I smoked when I was younger, too), I was surrounded by a group of protesters. They were so nice and loving at first. Then, when it became clear to them that I wouldn't change my mind, they became more and more hysterical and the loving charade changed into calling me a murderer and telling me how I would burn in hell.

I felt guilty about the abortion for a year or so, until I came to terms with the fact that the decision was a sound one, and that the reason I was having guilt was because of the berating from the anti-abortion folks.

I then went onto graduate from undergrad, went onto graduate school, and now I am married and have a child in a supportive, loving environment.

I couldn't even take care of myself at that point in my life- having a child would have been disasterous. I know women who have given up their child for adoption, and they are screwed up! They are haunted immensely for giving their child up and wracked with guilt!

One of the big problems with the pro-choice position is that people, women and men, who've had positive or neutral abortion experiences have been so marginalized, or even paralyzed with fear about speaking up about it, that they remain silent. This gives the impression that they do not exist, when obviously they must.

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

» RE: I Had an Abortion... Posted by: morticia
Pro-LIFE ... or just pro-BIRTH???
Posted by: AlwaysAskWhy on Nov 1, 2007 10:45 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right wing so-called 'pro-lifers' are not pro-life in any way shape or form. They are, however, simply pro-BIRTH. These are the same fanatics that kill doctors, embrace Bush's war-for-profit, which is MASS MURDER of approaching 1 million men, women and children...for PROFIT. These are the very same people who turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the screams of those being tortured by Bush and Cheney, as surely as if they were in the room, themselves. These are the same folks who are willing to ignore the treason committed by Bush and Cheney in outing Valerie Plame Wilson and her covert operation tracking WMD's around the world and especially in Iraq... endangering probably hundreds of lives. These are the same people who, on grounds that it is 'too expensive', support Bush's veto of health care for children of the millions of families who can barely hang on. These are the same people who turn their heads and cover their ears when they hear that Bush and the Republicans underfunded VA benefits at a time when they were asking us to 'support the troops' and sending our soldiers unprotected into the killing zone to be maimed and traumatized, if they survive at all. These are the same people who are completely and utterly indifferent to under funding the so-called 'no child left behind' act.... that leaves our children unprepared educationally to support themselves, then these same people give us the old 'bootstrap' crap that vilifies the poor and objects to any social programs for those who effectively don't even have boots. The list of presidential and vice-presidential crimes against our Constitution and the laws of this nation and the world are so long it should make any human being's skin crawl. These are the folks who are indifferent to and unphased by the blood dripping from the White House and Congress.

And these are the same people who are not even phased by Bush's recent rants about World War III and threats to attack Iran... especially at a moment when this lunatic doesn't even have the troops to do it.... and says that nuclear attacks on Iran are a possibility!!!! God! Are these people insane? Bush is, for sure.

There is NOTHING pro-LIFE about these selfish and self-absorbed fanatics. There is nothing Christ-like about these people. There is nothing humane about these people. These people are only pro-BIRTH of little babies who could then grow up to be fodder for the corporate war machine, work in their homes, take care of their privileged children, mopping their factory floors, working in their corporations and fighting for every damned nickle they get for their labor that makes the U.S. Fascist Corporatocracy fabulously wealthy, while they screw others, including these pro-lifers, out of the fruits of their labors. These rabid pro-"lifers" vote for lying candidates, who grab them where they live... in their sense of indignation and superiority..., then who later sell out to the highest bidder and screw even them. Most astonishing is that they refuse to even believe their eyes and ears, the declining state of their communities and their families... they just keep repeating the same mantras ... on the road to their own destruction. It's astounding, the stupidity and ignorance.

No, there is absolutely nothing pro-LIFE about these folks. Christopher Hitchens is right: Religion kills everything!!!

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

I have not have not had an abortion
Posted by: herbal on Nov 1, 2007 11:04 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because I am male. So its not my place to judge abortion choices. I would ask what happened to the euphemistic D&C's that were so common before the Wade descision. People do need to know that about 80% of women who have abortions are married mothers. It is safe to asssume that many of them are fundamentalists who are not consistent with their professed beliefs. Indeed, no one is for abortion. It is unfortunate to have such a need, all would agree. It is also unfortunate that the Democratic party is weakened by trying to popularize, as with gay lib, issues that are patently unpopular. Perhaps it would be useful to reformulate such political response to unfortunate but unavoidable behaviors.

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

The Lack of an Honest Debate
Posted by: Jbuuty on Nov 2, 2007 12:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Abortion rights is an issue that spawns dishonesty and name-calling more than truth and debate and listening and understanding. There is no discussion of the issues, there is a lot of framing on both sides (as one comment mentions), much name-calling (as can be found in both the article and the comments), very little listening, and no consideration of the other viewpoint as being even plausible.

The anti-abortion side has never seriously taken into account a woman's right to her body, nor the sexual and social realities of unwanted pregnancies. The 'pro-choice' movement is seriously concerned about women's issues, but the 'pro-life' movement wants to characterize them as 'baby-killers' and 'bad mothers' and 'Nazis', etc.

The pro-abortion side has never seriously considered the question of life in relationship to conception and the foetus. The 'pro-life' movement is seriously concerned about the killing of human life (at least in the case of abortion), but the 'pro-choice' movement characterizes them as 'women-haters' and 'anti-sex' (They keep reproducing, so they must not be absolutely anti-sex.) and 'Nazis', etc.

A discussion that was centered on what is right and best for people and society would be wonderful. Instead we have a pure power struggle, and truth be damned.

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

» Lack of an honest debate? Posted by: morticia
Highlighting bad research
Posted by: Jbuuty on Nov 2, 2007 12:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The writer of the article does poor research in this article. This doesn't help the debate. One major fault is that she seems to claim the ability to read the minds of others. She jumps from event to conclusion without showing any evidence that such a jump is justified.

When discussing what seems to be a 'pro-life' training event she uses the phrase, the sanctimonious misogynists, and then concludes that the young men and women who are there have no real feelings of sympathy for women, especially those who have had an abortion. Because they are taught to be 'sensitive' to some extent, she concludes that they must be insensitive. While this training scenario is rather disturbing, her conclusions are clear overstatements.

Let's look at this paragraph. The issue of birth control gets at the heart of another vexing issue, though. As reproductive justice activists fight to defend a woman's right to privacy, they're also working to protect a woman's right to access to birth control because they generally don't want women to have to resort to abortion either. Abortion typically being the last resort, a woman who has one is likely not a selfish slut seeking convenience. But that is just what some of these characters will have you believe. Especially the kind of person who holds up the despicable sign "God Hates You The Way You Are: Sodomites, Abortionists, Drunkards," for example, at the 2004 March for Women's Lives. So much for the feigned sympathy of a 13-year-old victim of rape, who, according to deluded anti-choice activists, was probably asking for it.

The only link between those holding 'the despicable sign' and those who 'feigned sympathy of a 13-year-old victim of rape' is that they oppose abortion. Not even discussing the author's mind-reading ability that enabled her to know that they feigned sympathy, we find her linking people taking an admittedly disturbing training course with extremists holding hate signs. Were the same people doing both? Are there any concrete links? Or this simply analogous to 'they must terrorist sympathizers, because they are Muslims'?

Another comment has already mentioned the following sentence. We learn that not all pro-lifers are uneducated, backwater "rednecks," and those who aren't are offended by the stereotype. Of course, everyone realizes that they are not uneducated. James Dobson, whatever one thinks of him (and I don't like him.), has a PhD and has taught at leading universities. The purpose of the statement clearly isn't to inform, but to imply something, probably to hint that 'pro-lifers' may be educated, but they are in reality just a bunch of rather ignorant people.

Then in the last two paragraphs of the article, the author begins by showing sympathy for a young woman who feels sorrow about having had an abortion, and publicly shares her story. (Considering the next paragraph, we must ask if the author was 'feigning sympathy', before 'going in for the kill'?) In the last paragraph the author proceeds to tell us that this woman in reality is a 'traitor to her sisters' and 'self-serving'.

The article is rather typical of both sides of this power struggle (It is not a debate.), full of innuendo, name-calling, ad hominem arguments, etc.

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

ABORTION SAVES LIVES
Posted by: thevideoqueen on Nov 2, 2007 1:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ABORTION SAVES LIVES should be the pro-choice slogan.

Just ask my mother who got pregnant wearing an IUD and was going to die and take that IUD-wrapped child down with her. Of course, back then doctors wouldn't perform operation until her husband gave his authorization. She survived and I was born a year later.

And ask my sister who got pregnant in one of her fallopian tubes a decade after she was "fixed." Impending death for her if no abortion had been performed. Just ask her children how they would have felt losing their mom, sole parent, and bread winner.

Abortion SAVES lives.

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

Too long to post here
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Nov 3, 2007 4:51 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and I'm in too much pain and too tired, but there's a lot to say. Here it is, and please forgive the link referral.

Ian

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/4/7555/67450

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

sex-selective abortions
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 3, 2007 4:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pro-life feminist Jo McGowan wrote in 1982:

"Once the abortion of any child, for any reason, is permitted, the abortion of all children becomes acceptable. If it is all right to kill a child because it is handicapped, or because its mother is unmarried, or because it is the third child in a family that only wanted two, why isn't it all right to kill it because it is a girl?

"This process of aborting girls when boys are wanted has been termed 'selective abortion,' but in fact every abortion is a selective one...Feminists who have been so active in assuring women of the 'right to choose' can hardly complain when those same women exercise their freedom to choose something with which feminists do not agree.

"Choice being such a highly personal affair, one can hardly expect everyone to choose the same things. But it is tragically ironic that what has been hailed as the 'great liberator' of women may turn out instead to be the means of their destruction...

"Perhaps, however, something good may yet emerge from this 'female feticide' outrage. Perhaps people, and feminists in particular, will finally realize what is actually at stake in an abortion. Perhaps from this undeniable truth that it is wrong to kill girls will emerge the larger truth that it is wrong to kill anyone."

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

I'm a liberal Christian
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 5, 2007 7:13 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that Jesus of Nazareth was liberal. He stood for equal rights for women. Real sin is a mob stoning an adultress, when in reality they're all deeply involved in the same sexual activity. Finally, Jesus just hated, despised those rich hypocritical collaborators who wouldn't say a word when the occupier army slaughtered a town full of infants, or cut off John the Baptist's head on a whim.

I happen to give nothing for rich "pro-life" preachers who supported the million-death Bush occupations, or who turn around and become "pro-death" when it comes to modern crucifixions of some surprisingly neat people. These preachers drive the nails in.

I condemn the heavy-handed stone-throwing stance of these same preachers. They ignore Jesus's suggestions that they stay out of the court system and give up on their intoxication with money as a political club. Their Gospels are a little pile of scrap left over from all the cutting out they did.

I take a very delicate stand on sexual actions and on abortion. We are designed, all of us, to take sexual risks. I've taken them myself in my lifetime (no pregnancies, I was lucky). As a result, we are each randomly placed (in a female-oriented draft lottery?) in positions to avoid love in our lives completely, to limit love a bit and cross our fingers a bit, to use or not to use birth control, to use the morning after pill, to have an abortion, to have the baby and give it up immediately, or to raise the child.

I see that a baby (versus a small clump of cells) is as much a picture in each individual's imagination as anything. One woman's baby is exactly the same size as the next woman's boo-boo to be fixed. The first woman will have regrets and the second woman just won't, ever. Later on, the second woman may well fall in love and raise kids like everyone else.

There is nothing directly Biblical about the morning after pill or any other form of birth control, except that the Israelites demanded as much population increase as possible, so the withdrawal method as a form of birth control (the only known method of birth control) was considered bad. I don't see, with 6 billion people on the Earth, how massive overpopulation is now in man's or in God's best interest.

I caution other liberal Christians that brutal and hateful political tactics, especially against innocents and people otherwise of good will, aren't Biblical. It's ok for us to own Jesus as the first nonviolent revolutionary. Jesus never asked us to be slavish literalists to a preacher's cut-up version of the Bible. We can simply say that Biblical teachings generally make sense, and thank you for them.

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

classist, regionalist bigotry is shameful
Posted by: sweet_byrd on Nov 5, 2007 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We learn that not all pro-lifers are uneducated, backwater "rednecks," and those who aren't are offended by the stereotype."

Why should this be a surprise? The crass regionalism and classism implicit in this sentence are just appalling. Just as it is bigoted and wrong for people to assume that all women who seek abortions are harlots, it is bigoted and wrong to assume that everyone who is against legalized abortions is an "uneducated, backwater 'redneck'". It is this kind of one-dimensional knee-jerk stereotyping that fuels the image of the big-city, elitist 'limousine liberal'. Call me naïve, but aren't liberals supposed to eschew classist bigotries like this.

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