The Abortion Scrum that Wasn't
Jeff Alworth
When you advertise a protest with signs that read "Warning Genocide Photos Ahead" and set up a barricaded photographic display that compares abortion to Nazi genocide, one thing can be said: you're spoiling for a fight. 
This afternoon, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, simultaneously affecting the pose of martyrs and thugs, got ready to rumble in the South Park Blocks of Portland State University. The result wasn't exactly what they expected, but I won't spoil the surprise in the first paragraph.
The visit was announced throughout the campus via an ominous email from University President Dan Bernstine:
This organization, which is visiting campuses throughout the West Coast, uses large graphic depictions comparing abortion to the holocaust or to lynchings, for example. According to the organization, these displays are intended to shock and provoke emotional responses from viewers....
The appearance on our campus of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform presents us with an opportunity to test the depth of our commitment to respect the rights of others, and the challenge to use that respect to temper our individual response to potentially controversial material. We are committed to the right of all people to expect a campus environment that is safe and free from fear. I am confident our campus response to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform will reflect the ideal of that statement.
What could go wrong? The group had selected one of the most godless, bluest cities in America and set up shop at the local university--with the greatest concentration of people antagonistic to their message. Game on!
Well, not exactly. Although there were three or four counter-protesters, for the most part, the campus community steered clear. In the absence of any counter-protest (or vague interest), volunteers spent the afternoon leaning on their now-absurd barricades and chatting with one another.
Beyond their obvious intention to provoke, it wasn't really clear what CBER was all about. I asked if the point was moral or political, and one volunteer gave a confused answer. "Both, both," he told me. "There are politics involved, definitely." But when he elaborated, he game me this answer:
"There are several things we're trying to do. One is to deter women from having an abortion. Two is to bring guilt to women who have maybe had an abortion and lead them to repentance. And three is just to get people to think about it."
The website (which I strong discourage you from visiting) presents a phantasmagoria of horrific images and details four campaigns which are ... phantasmagorias of horrific images. This is the group who plasters full-color photos of fetuses on trucks. The Matthew 28:20 project uses the images to target churches "that are failing to discharge their biblical mandate to be a witness against evil." And of course, today's "Genocide Awareness Project" is "directed at the secular community, using civil rights based arguments" to encourage students "to think about abortion in a broader historical context." But beyond the sensational, there doesn't actually appear to be a call to action. It apparently amounts to a well-funded effort solely to shock people.
Abortion is a serious public policy issue, and opposing it is a legitimate position. But CBER didn't come out to debate policy in the public square, they came out to shock, debase, and provoke fights. They were throwing a public tantrum. Of course, the reason people throw tantrums is to get attention. And the way to deflate tantrums is to ignore those throwing them. This afternoon, CBER got a nice lesson in civic behavior by the students, faculty, and staff of PSU.
Nothing to see here, folks....
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
4:16 p.m.
May 9, '07
Another exchange (that didn't really fit into the body of the post):
And a wee bit later:
5:02 p.m.
May 9, '07
I saw the images today, as I was on my way to PSU's play structure down the block, with my two year old. How very child friendly of them, to display clearly exaggerated and hyperbolic images for my child to see. Mostly, I saw people avoiding them at all costs --not the most effective organizing strategy I've seen.
7:26 p.m.
May 9, '07
Kristin,
I'm sure they don't care and they'll defend themselves by saying at least they put up a warning stating that should be enough.
Dr. Burnstine seems like a nice guy and he went out of his way to at least announce what was going on before to preempt any problems. It sounds like that worked for the most part. I guess if no one pays attention to them, maybe they'll be less likely to come back.
Disclosure: I am a graduate of PSU.
May 9, '07
Conservatives make lame protesters. Even though this was the most in-your-face thing I've ever seen from the right at PSU, they still lacked bullhorns, energy, and yeah, even barricaded themselves away from the people. Doesn't even compare. You can tell they feel like they should be doing it, but they just aren't as comfortable with it and would rather not be there. I for one wish they weren't.
Don't get me wrong, abortion is wrong, RvW was wrongly decided, and 100 years from now they'll look back on us with the same "wtf were they thinking?" attitude that we look back on slaveholders today. And yet, I felt far more inclined to avoid the entire thing on my way back from class today. I question strategy the entire demonstration. What's the point of "shocking" people who have underdeveloped natural pity to begin with?
This dichotomy is so tiring. Maybe it's just my pacifist background. They preferred to deal with political issues on a personal level only. In the 30's my Grandmother from SD was spending her teen summers living with black families in absolute poverty in the deep south... but of course it wasn't until political organization that the civil rights movement began 30 years later.
May 9, '07
Yea, I saw the truck, too. Pretty lame. I hung out with all the cool people eating my lunch half a block away.
Figured I've seen enough blood from my share of Hollywood movies, Holocaust movies, televised Iraq war (1 & 2), Bosnia war, Kosovo war, Chechnya war (1 & 2), Somalia war, Darfur genocide, Rwanda genocide, LA riots, school shootings... am I missing anything? CSI? Can't really remember now. Eh...
May 9, '07
"And the way to deflate tantrums is to ignore those throwing them. This afternoon, CBER got a nice lesson in civic behavior by the students, faculty, and staff of PSU."
...isn't this what people usually say about Portland? 'It's just so nice...'
May 9, '07
Luke,
Was Griswold v. Connecticut also wrongly decided? If there is no right of privacy, there is no Roe and there is no Griswold. Do you propose upholding Griswold but not Roe? On what basis would you uphold Griswold without a right of privacy?
Does the 9th Amendment have any purpose? What do you think it means?
I thought the Constitution's primary purpose was to guaranty our freedom. If the state can make it illegal for a married couple to use birth control (Griswold, 1965), are we free?
May 10, '07
Anon,
I am not a law student, and I claim only a humble education in constitutional law. Also I do not believe I have the wit, wisdom, or skill to substantively influence anybody's opinion. However for the sake of politeness I will briefly address your question and then leave it at that so I don't muck up this blog.
At least as I currently understand it, I have no problem with Griswold. It is reasonable throughout the founding documents (Constitution, The Federalists, Declaration, etc) that at an implied right to privacy on some level exists. In that sense, I have no beef with the ruling. However, the Justices made a gross legal and moral error when they took an implied right, and prioritized it over a declared right. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was not arranged so by accident. When one's "pursuit of happiness" takes an other's "life," it cannot be legally justified. Thus, the Griswold understanding of privacy is appropriate, but few moral liberals (I mean that in the philosophical sense, as opposed to a prudential liberal) can tolerate RvW.
-Luke
May 10, '07
Luke,
Well, I see your point.
You say - abortion is evil, wrong and immoral. More precisely, women who choose to have an abortion are evil, wrong and immoral. Without the intervention of the state, women will act in a manner that is evil, wrong and immoral - therefore- none of them should be permitted to make decisions that profoundly affect their own lives and bodies. Men, who do not know them, should make those decisions for them. Men are simply morally superior and women are weak and stupid.
Gotcha.
May 10, '07
Luke: I don't agree with you; even so, that is clearly the most eloquent argument against Roe I've ever encountered. I see your point about "implied right" over a "declared right" and note that you didn't use the word "evil" even once. (I would disagree, among other things, with your definition of "life" -- but, so what, neither of us are lawyers.)
Anyway: I am a PSU student. There was a small counter-protest, but for the most part this blog is right: the whole thing strangely just seemed to bore everyone. One thing is that the protestors just looked absurd the way they had barricaded themselves. It's sort of like the guy who drives that truck with the same images -- he's got a helmet, bulletproof vest, and a security car following him. Clearly, most of us don't value our safety as much as they do. One cool thing about the barricade though. New word: freedom-fence.
May 10, '07
Why is Roe v Wade wrongly decided? Because you think that you can cobble up some handwaving arguments based on documents created when women of all races were little more than chattel and most men lacked the vote because of property qualifications?
Scalia's argument boils down to this: "Although abortions were legal when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were adopted, the later restrictions (by Mass. then by other states) were Constitutional because, well, the men didn't mind and the women had no vote. I'm Catholic and I think abortions are wrong, and there are five of us male Catholics here, so we're going to invent a state authority to force woment to remain pregnant---even over the advice of their physician, even at the cost of thier own lives---even going so far as to uphold a FEDERAL ban on medical practice, which we typically say is a state regulatory function."
If there was any error in Roe it was in creating a "state interest" that could be used to force a woman to carry a fetus to term whether she wants to or not. The only thing uglier than late-term abortions is George W. Bush and Co. deciding medical procedures for other people.
Talk about "life" all you want, but a fetus is not a person with rights. And a pregnant woman is not two people, it's one person with the right to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term.
Don't like abortions? Don't have one.
If you're a man, and it's obvious that you are, get yourself fixed, the sooner the better.
May 10, '07
"When one's "pursuit of happiness" takes an other's "life," it cannot be legally justified."
What about when one's "life" takes another's "life"?
I only went to a couple of years of college, but I hope this isn't what passes for an eloquent argument at PSU.
Even if we buy into the assertion that RvW was wrongly decided (which I don't) because the implied right to privacy shouldn't take precedent over the declared rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," it's hard not to take issue with the specious example and (polite!) insults Luke uses.
No, he didn't once call anyone "evil." That was The Matthew 28:20 project, I believe. Nevertheless, without all the rhetoric, we can deduce that Luke believes "abortion is [always] wrong," an apparently easy choice for "[im]moral liberal" women with "underdeveloped natural pity," who, solely in "pursuit of [their own] happiness," thoughtlessly "take another's life." I don't know, is that better than evil?
Regardless of his choice of words, Luke's just trotting out the same old, lame and blatantly transparent emotional ploy favored by the anti-choice crowd: she killed their baby in the pursuit of happiness. That's it. That's the only reason a woman gets an abortion. Now there's an honest argument.
I won't bother to list the myriad reasons and real-life examples of why people (not just women) make that agonizing choice. If you can accept that some abort thoughtlessly and cruely, a logical, thinking, honest person can also accept that the opposite is also true.
Why completely ignore the horrifying fact that with this recent Supreme Court decision, the law says my baby's life is valued over my own. How does that reconcile with your "declared rights" hierarchy?
Finally, have you considered how the logic you used in your critique of RvW might affect issues other than abortion? For instance, does my declared right to the pursuit of happiness trump your implied right to privacy?
May 10, '07
As a high school exchange student in Finland one summer, I broached the topic of abortion with my Finnish host parents (Scandinavian countries were some of the first to grant free, safe, and legal abortions).
"Some people believe abortion is murder," I said. "Weren't there Finns who opposed abortion when it was made illegal?"
"Well, we actually believe abortion is murder," replied my host parents.
"But you support free abortions?!?" I asked, confused.
"Yes. At least with abortion you only risk one life," they answered.
It really struck me then (as now) how pragmatic and practical many Scandinavians, Dutch, and other Europeans are when it comes to controversial issues such as these. Seems to me Americans are more apt to adopt a "make it illegal and it'll go away" attitude, rather than really thinking about the full ramifications including the unintended consequences.
What concerns me most about those so ready to blame and guilt women is the almost complete lack of concern for her wellbeing (beyond her alleged salvation or lack thereof) or that of the potential child.
A political cartoon I remember from 20 years ago showed the "4 trimesters" of pregnancy. Each frame showed a pregnant woman walking into a planned parenthood clinic during each trimester. She is accosted by pro-life demonstrators, and as each trimester passes, the group of demonstrators grows bigger and more antagonistic. In the fourth frame (the "4th trimester"), the woman is shown holding her newborn, and all the demonstrators have abandoned her to go and attack another pregnant woman.
May 10, '07
Typo:
"Weren't there Finns who opposed abortion when it was made legal?"
May 10, '07
Although I disagree with Luke's position, I'm more than a little appalled at the reaction he has received here. I don't think anyone can deny that abortion is an emotional issue that generates a passionate response from almost everyone. However, we aren't going to convince anyone that the right to choose is a woman's prerogative if we immediately attack their personal character. In addition, dismissing Luke's (or anyone else's) opinion on the grounds that he is a man and therefore not qualified to speak is just as bad as prohibiting an abortion because the patient is a women and therefore not qualified to make a choice about her body. I'd hope that we could all practice our liberal open-mindedness here and engage in some respectful, productive discussion.
9:11 a.m.
May 10, '07
An interesting thing happens when you're polite: people listen. Luke made a polite, thoughtful argument against my own, and I stopped to consider it. I thought "Anon" might respond in kind, but he hit the talking points and I quit reading (if talking points are such strong arguments, why do people hide behind anonymity?). Madam Hatter and JMG followed up with boilerplate invective, and I skipped them, too.
Perhaps 34 years is enough time to listen to tantrums--maybe we've had enough. The reason this issue has been so contentious is because it lives in a netherworld of ethics and law. It's impossible to come to a legal rationale for an ethical issue on which Americans are split. The best we can do is compromise. Screamers like CBER and "Anon" want none of it. We've heard their arguments. I'm more interested in those like Luke's--transparent and open to discussion.
May 10, '07
By all means - let's ignore the law and the Constitution when we decide this issue. So just like Bush, throw the Constitution out the window if it does not suit our own narrow moral view. Great! Excuse me if you all have decided that I am just a potted plant - a vessel to grow things in, with no intrinsic value, dignity or mind of my own. You have made YOUR moral decision - that just trumps everyhing because you are utterly convinced of your own moral superiority! How nice for you.
I still have no answer to the following. Does the Constituion matter to any of you, in any way whatsoever?
Was Griswold v. Connecticut also wrongly decided? If there is no right of privacy, there is no Roe and there is no Griswold. Do you propose upholding Griswold but not Roe? On what basis would you uphold Griswold without a right of privacy?
Does the 9th Amendment have any purpose? What do you think it means?
I thought the Constitution's primary purpose was to guaranty our freedom. If the state can make it illegal for a married couple to use birth control (Griswold, 1965), are we free?
Luke - have you ever used birth control? Do you ever expect to? Many people would call that choice immoral because you are impeding the will of God to create a child. But let me guess - for your own CONVENIENCE and happiness - you and/or your partner selfishly choose to use birth control.
And let me make this crystal clear. If Roe is overturned, Griswold is also overturned. That means that states can make it illegal for even MARRIED couples to use birth control. And we all want the state in our bedrooms telling us we can't use birth control, even when married.
Luke - you cannot just ignore that so that you can bask in the glow of your own superior morals.
May 10, '07
I am a pro- life progressive, and the solution is simple. If there were never again a terminated pregnancy, I would be happy. As a male who has had a partner go through this, I wouldn't wish it on anybody.
Making abortion illegal is stupid and dangerous. Mandating morals is wrong, and wanting to punish someone for having to make this choice is double jeopardy,in my opinion.
Does anyone ever consider the idea of preventing unwanted pregnancies? I advocate for Plan B on demand, as it prevents fertilization. A woman should be able to get this drug, free of charge- hassle free. Comprehensive sex education in our schools, starting at middle school, or even below would prevent many unwanted pregnancies- Access to free birth control, confidentially and judgement free, regardless of age would prevent unwanted pregnancies as well. Making this medical procedure illegal, and punishing those after the fact, does not prevent abortion or unwanted pregnancy. Pro life anti choice etc. is just a political ploy to rally some types of voters, but it doesn't save one dang life. It just divides the voters and works as a political tool. Luke, your replies were very thoughtful and well reasoned, but there is a better and more effective way to be pro life, but we most always remember that reproductive decisions should be up to the individual- I just wish the tools were available so that fewer women had to make that decision.
May 10, '07
A very similar event occurred probably 8 years or so ago at PSU. Up to that point I bought into the line that "It's a womens body" and as a man, I shouldn't have an opinion. The reaction of the crowd back then was much as it has been described in this post but I for one was moved. Seeing real hacked-up babies arms and legs on huge posters or, skulls bore through with god knows what leaking out, and other assorted bloody-red carnage does conjure pictures of the holocaust. How can one say "never again" and be in favor of a person's right to murder their own unborn children -- is it okay when individuals commit genocide but not okay for state's to do so?
May 10, '07
Anon,
Not everyone who opposes abortion is a bible-thumping misogynist. You could make a more compelling argument if you recognized this simple fact, and stopped yelling through your keyboard.
12:39 p.m.
May 10, '07
I disagree with Luke as well, but this exchange is downright bizarre.
Anon: Was Griswold v. Connecticut also wrongly decided? If there is no right of privacy, there is no Roe and there is no Griswold. Do you propose upholding Griswold but not Roe? On what basis would you uphold Griswold without a right of privacy?
Luke: At least as I currently understand it, I have no problem with Griswold. It is reasonable throughout the founding documents (Constitution, The Federalists, Declaration, etc) that at an implied right to privacy on some level exists. In that sense, I have no beef with the ruling.
Anon: I still have no answer to the following. Does the Constituion matter to any of you, in any way whatsoever? Was Griswold v. Connecticut also wrongly decided?
Um, Anon, he answered your question. You might actually try reading the responses to your questions before going on the attack.
And use your name. You're not saying anything here that's going to get you fired. Except maybe being an unlistening boor.
May 10, '07
Thanks raul, for your thoughtful comments.
It gives me hope that there are those out there willing to find common ground rather than further entrenching themselves thinking that this will convince anyone to change their mind.
I remember seeing a special years ago on C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General under Reagan. He is opposed to abortion on religious grounds, but also has stated (I paraphrase) "as long as there are unwanted pregnancies, there will be abortion." He realized that making them illegal would do little to reduce the need or occurrence of abortion (he also shook things up by straightforwardly advising the proper use of condoms).
I acknowledge Luke's considerate postings, but I respectfully disagree with his views completely. I doubt he (or End Abortion Now) will convince me to change my mind, just as I doubt I'll change theirs.
What we can do is work toward a common goal. I'll bet no one on this board wants to to see unwanted pregnancies (whether they result in abortion or unwanted children).
Raul's suggestions are a clarion call I would be happy to follow. Luke, Grant, End Abortion Now, et. al., what say you?
May 10, '07
Please don't lump me with Luke and EAN. All I was saying is that Anon should be mindful of the stereotypes (s)he advances. That is all.
May 10, '07
Grant,
Sorry, didn't mean to "lump" you in with anyone; I was unclear.
I'm just interested in your opinion as well that of as Anon, MH, and others (that's what the "et. al." was for).
Is there a possibility for uniting on a cause rather than trying to valiantly (but futilely) convince the other side to change its mind?
May 10, '07
tl -
As far as Raul's suggestions go:
"Making abortion illegal is stupid and dangerous. Mandating morals is wrong..."
Is robbery immoral? How about murder?
"Does anyone ever consider the idea of preventing unwanted pregnancies? I advocate for Plan B on demand, as it prevents fertilization. A woman should be able to get this drug, free of charge-hassle free."
I don't know enough about Plan B, are prescriptions necessary to get it? The option sounds intriguing, any effort to make it "on demand and free" will be controversial and likely met with much opposition.
"Comprehensive sex education in our schools, starting at middle school, or even below would prevent many unwanted pregnancies-"
I don't have any problem with the topic being discussed in a high school level anatomy or biology class (I favor a later, more clinical approach here because parents really need to be presenting this material).
"Access to free birth control, confidentially and judgement free, regardless of age would prevent unwanted pregnancies as well."
While you are likely correct in that birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, a lot of people are going to be opposed to paying for prevention of other people's "unwanted pregnancies" or, what they are really going to be opposed to is paying for other people's moral decisions.
"Making this medical procedure illegal, and punishing those after the fact, does not prevent abortion or unwanted pregnancy."
Could you provide some source material here? I believe making the procedure illegal will prevent abortion (to what degree is debatable) but it will prevent it.
May 10, '07
Can anyone really believe that abortion would even be an issue if men had to face the possiblity of giving birth to and raising a child because of one night of failed contraception?
If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrement.
-- Florence Kennedy
May 10, '07
"Making this medical procedure illegal, and punishing those after the fact, does not prevent abortion or unwanted pregnancy."
Could you provide some source material here?
From 1992 to 2000 the total number of abortions decreased every single year.
From 2001 until present, despite the number of anti-choice laws put into effect and the millions of taxpayer dollars pumped into abstinence-only "education", the total number of abortion procedures have increased every single year.
Now, what were you saying about "morals?"
2:41 p.m.
May 10, '07
Raul... to answer your question:
All the time. That is what Planned Parenthood and most pro-choice people strongly advocate day after day, year after year. That is what the fight over promoting abstinence-plus and NOT abstinence-only education is all about. Yet the very same wing-nuts who rail against abortion rail against promoting abstinence-plus education (which is the best method of reducing unwanted pregnancies before they occur) because they wrongly think it will encourage young people to have sex.
I also respect Luke being civil in his comments even though I think he is seriously off the rails in his thinking and understanding of the foundations of the decision of Roe.
We all acknowledge that I have no right to use the powers of the state to compel anyone, luke, my spouse... anyone, to donate a kidney in order to save my son's life (or even my own life)... yet we are to accept the notion that a blastocyst in a woman's uterus, with no capacity brain function and nothing even close to resembling a definition of a person, has rights that supersede what we all would freely acknowledge I have no basis to claim as "my right" to force Luke to donate his kidney over his own objections.
Yet that is the basic premise Luke's moral/ethical/legal argument rests upon. Needless to say it leaves my jaw agape and scratching my head at the "thinking" behind abortion = murder advocates.
2:44 p.m.
May 10, '07
So I should have the right to make the state force you to donate your kidney against your will or consent?
May 10, '07
Scott in Damascus --
"From 1992 to 2000 the total number of abortions decreased every single year ... From 2001 until present, despite the number of anti-choice laws put into effect and the millions of taxpayer dollars pumped into abstinence-only "education", the total number of abortion procedures have increased every single year."
Don't you find your argument that "laws and education" = > infanticide morbid?
When abortion is illegal, fewer babies will die. You can't site a single place on the planet where abortion has been made illegal and abortions have increased as a result.
Lestatdelc --
"So I should have the right to make the state force you to donate your kidney against your will or consent?"
I'm not sure I follow your train of thought, forgive me. If you are asserting that disallowing abortion is akin to making me do something with my body that I don't want, the logic only holds if my kidney were granted the right to life -- the right you would deny the dehumanized "blastocyst" (doesn't it just make you feel icky on the inside to refer to a person like that?).
May 10, '07
EAN promptly conflates legal definitions of proscribed behavior with morality. The State could care less about the morality of robbery, etc, what it cares about is social order. God may not like robbery, the State simply cannot tolerate it and the disorder that would accompany it nor the abrogation of the social contract that a government shall (in this case) protect property rights.
EAN apparently seriously expects people to accept the morality of government and law, evidently giving a complete miss to the fact that morals and ethics are voluntary actions while Law does not involve a single voluntary concept. Police guns and handcuffs, Judges & lawyers, Jails with bars and armed guards...lots of voluntary action there.
4:12 p.m.
May 10, '07
It is a straightforward question. Do you think I have the right to force you to donate your kidney to me against your will?
No, again, I am asking a simple, direct, straightforward question about whether you think I do (or should ) as a human being, have the right (morally, ethically and legally) to use the state to force you (another human being) to donate your kidney for my use?
What blather. A blastocyst is what it is, a collection of living human cells with zero capacity for brain function and is in no way a living person. And no, it doesn't make me feel icky at all to accurately and precisely use the correct terminology for a stage of mammalian fetal development. So care to address my question?
May 10, '07
Don't you find your argument that "laws and education" = > infanticide morbid?
No, I don't find facts "morbid."
But I do find your inability to process such information disturbing. Obviously your agenda is to control the creation process rather than reduce unwanted pregnancy.
Just as I suspected.
p.s. in the future, please refrain from using the term "icky" in your discussion. It just makes you look, well, stupid.
6:00 p.m.
May 10, '07
(crickets)
May 11, '07
Oh, I get it now.
Equating pro-choicers to slaveholders and stating they are immoral "people who have underdeveloped natural pity to begin with," is polite. And, implying that women kill their babies solely in the pursuit of hapiness is a thoughtful argument.
But challenging these inflammatory insults and faulty logic is boilerplate invective.
I see....
Well, no, I actually don't.
But Jeff has spoken, so that's it for me. Too bad you didn't read the rest of my post and respond to the points I brought up rather than labeling it as a tantrum and dismissing it out of hand. Is that the kind of "open and honest conversation" that's encouraged here on BlueOregon?
May 11, '07
Well, it sure looks like the attempt to find common ground fell flat pretty fast.
I'll repeat that I don't think there is much chance that one side can convince the other to change its mind about such questions as what is moral or not, when life begins, etc. etc. etc...
What I do believe is that no matter what the laws, as long as there are unwanted pregnancies, there will be abortions. It was true before Roe v. Wade, and, should abortion rights in the future be further limited or removed altogether, it will be true then, too.
11:41 a.m.
May 11, '07
A day later and my question still goes unanswered.
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that after years of posing that basic, direct, simple question that drives to the core of the issue, have I never had a single anti-choice advocate willing or able to answer it, they always dodge it because of where it leads.
May 11, '07
And here we go again. Regarding the gruesome pictures, I have no issue with them being displayed- but I bet if we posted pictures of lots of medical procedures, those would be " icky " as well. My partner is a RN, and some of the things she tells me about ( I listen to help her destress ) tend to roil my stomach at times. Try something as simple as the changing of an ostomy bag, or treating pressure sores.
I have to think that anyone REALLY interested in saving the life of an unborn child would do anything to do that. It seems that many of the pro lifers on this board are more interested in punishment after the fact. We do not prevent murder or theft by making it illegal. Those who commit a crime do it thinking they will not be caught. It is the ROOT CAUSE that must be addressed.
"Access to free birth control, confidentially and judgement free, regardless of age would prevent unwanted pregnancies as well."
While you are likely correct in that birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, a lot of people are going to be opposed to paying for prevention of other people's "unwanted pregnancies" or, what they are really going to be opposed to is paying for other people's moral decisions.
Would you rather pay to support unwanted children and their teenage parents? I thought not. And it appears to be a money equation for you. "How do we pay for it", you ask. That doesn't sound like someone that truly wishes to save a LIFE.
Somebody's moral decisions are clearly based on their upbringing, and also what is socially acceptable. Some girls have these babies with the idea that there will finally be somebody in their lives that really love them.
EAN and the like, I call BS. I don't think you want to save children's lives, or make anything better for anybody. This is merely a political talking point for you- a way to put yourselves above " the godless."
11:58 a.m.
May 11, '07
Ugh:
Should read:
May 11, '07
EAN said:
I don't have any problem with the topic being discussed in a high school level anatomy or biology class (I favor a later, more clinical approach here because parents really need to be presenting this material).
I say:
Many parents do not present this material- that is part of the problem. And out of curiosity, what would be a non clinical way of offering sex-ed? How about this:
Single mothers and parents sharing their stories of hardship
Self realization courses- career counseling and teaching kids that their bodies are changing/going to change and to prewarn them of the changes that will take place.
Or how about promoting college and upward educational momentum- and warning children how difficult that will be as a young couple ( which usually isn't the case ) or as a single mother ( more likely the case)
The same folks who feel that parents should be presenting this information are the same ones continuosly complaining about lack of parental involvement in schools, etc.
Are you afraid that teachers will turn your children into atheists? Don't you think that a professional should honestly a dispassionately present this information? Do you think teachers support premarital intercourse or applaud every time an abortion happens?
Talking to kids from a young age and reinforcing this information is where it needs to be. Anyone suggesting presenting this information at the teenage level exclusively clearly doesn't have a teenager- if they did, they would know how difficult it can be to get through to them in the best of circumstances.
May 12, '07
"End Abortion Now" writes:
And also:This is what really annoys me about many of the people in the anti-abortion movement. (By the way, EAN, I understand that you aren't necessarily taking these positions, but that you are describing how others might react.) If I believed that millions of innocent babies were being murdered, I would be willing to pay a little for freely available birth control to prevent it.
When I see so-called "pro-life" people resist the most effective steps that could be taken to prevent abortions, it makes me wonder if their aim is really ending abortion or stigmatizing women for being sexually active.
lestatdelc: I'm really glad that Planned Parenthood exists and I think it is an awesome organization for doing what it can to provide access to birth control. I think Raul's point is that we should have even fewer barriers to birth control. I believe that any fertile person should be able to get free birth control from the state. Furthermore, it should be encouraged. Plan B should be available with minimal hassle.
(By the way, I suspect the costs of providing free birth control might be offset by a decrease in the costs imposed by unwanted pregnancy.)
9:07 p.m.
May 13, '07
When I see so-called "pro-life" people resist the most effective steps that could be taken to prevent abortions, it makes me wonder if their aim is really ending abortion or stigmatizing women for being sexually active.
<h2>Well put, PID. To trim it up even more, it seems that whenever you've got a anti-abortion activist arguing against birth control, there's just one question to ask: Are you really anti-abortion, or are you just anti-sex?</h2>