Before I get into this, let me say up front that I am not speaking of the many thoughtful pro-life posters on this board, or even the vast majority of pro-lifers IRL. I’m talking about those so fanatically opposed to abortion that they picket outside clinics, hand graphic leaflets out at school, and stalk the families of abortion providers.
I understand that their professed motivation is to save babies, but . . . has it not occurred to them that many of their tactics only reinforce pro-choice arguments as well as alienate women who might have been swayed into not ending their pregnancies? Or is it that the radical feminists are right and the cry of “save the human babies” is only a cover for a concerted effort to deprive women of reproductive rights?
There are federal laws in place that prevent abortion protesters from coming within six feet of any person going to or from a clinic because so many people have felt threatened by the screaming and threatening postures of the protesters.
Are these people that are simply so caught up in their zealous efforts that they are blind to the effects of their actions?
Has a woman ever been convinced by a picture of an aborted embryo or screams that she’s a murder that she should consider adoption?
WAG- the extreme ‘block-the-doors’ protestors feel that the women coming into the clinics have been brainwashed. The protestors’ believe that the situation progresses thusly:
A poor young woman becomes pregnant. She is overwhelmed by the repercussions of this event, and seeks a way to deal with it. Enter the liberal/feminist propaganda, which tells this poor young woman that there’s nothing to worry about. “It’s not a potential human life; it’s just a mass of tissue, akin to a tumor. Having it removed is painless and a completely rational decision to make, especially for someone who cannot truly afford the time/money to raise a child.” Therefore, convinced that it’s not really a child, the woman goes to get an abortion.
Enter the protestors, who with their giant posters and ‘abortion-in-a-can’ displays show the poor young woman that it truly is a child, and the poor young woman rejects the liberal/feminist brainwashing, and runs away from her lesbian protectors to become a good Christian (like a Baptist) and- er, sorry, got carried away. Anyways, failing the ‘prove to her it’s a child, not a mass of tissue’, you can always scare her over A) making the wrong decision and being judged by God to spend eternity in Hell or B) that those protesters might actually do her bodily harm so that she runs away and avoids the clinic, thus eventually giving birth to a baby she doesn’t want and will abuse, but that’s okay because Christian values only matter when it’s dealing with the baby before it’s born.
Wow. Sorry if that gets this thread into the Pit. I just truly disrespect those kinds of protestors.
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
The only thing that I can think of as to this is that those who blow up abortion clinics, make threats at those who decide to get abortions are HYPROCRITES. That’s the bottom line… they claim to be out there trying to save lives but at the same time, they are killing the people who will when they are ready provide the offspring for us. Maybe the people getting the abortions aren’t yet ready to take care of the child but that doesn’t mean that their life should be taken away becuase they will give birth when the family is stable and ready for a child etc etc… I don’t know, maybe i’m totally wrong on this one, but when I see that kind of stuff on the news, i just laugh to myself and say hypocrites.
Thoughts by Chrissy
“What you think is what you think…but what I think is how it is.”
-me’00
A great movie on this topic - Citizan Ruth. Laura Dern plays a junkie who has had 3 kids taken from her already. She gets picked up again. While in holding, they find out she’s pregnant again. The judge says that her trial judge may go easier on her if she gets an abortion. The radical anti-abortionists get ahold of this, and start using her to further her cause. She is then kidnapped by pro-abortionists, who brainwash her and start using her to further THEIR cause. By the end of the movie, she wises up and screws both sides.
I had a priest reccomend this movie to a conservative congregation. Unfortunately, they wouldn’t see the humor in the characitures of themselves.
“The large print givith, and the small print taketh away.”
Tom Waites, “Step Right Up”
I know this is hard for many Dopers to accept - hell, I have to remind myself daily - but there are many people who do not use logic as a primary thought process. (aside: I had a boss like this, and I finally learned to stop trying to give her reasons why what she wanted me to do wouldn’t work, was a waste of time, etc. Instead, I nodded and smiled and did what I wanted to.)
Obviously, this approach doesn’t work when dealing with the more offensive, confrontational manifestations of this… way of thinking? disorder? In fact, I’d appreciate some suggestions. How the heck can you even talk to people who aren’t too concerned with the logical defensibility of their beliefs and/or political positions? I can’t even conceive of it.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - B. Russell
No, technically they are not hypocrites. A hypocrite is someone who claims to believe in something they do not.
They believe that they are choosing the lesser of two evils by sacrificing the lives of a few in what they hope will save the lives of many.
This logic applies to many different terrorist bombings, hijackings, guerrilla attacks, etc. Just because you don’t agree with someone doesn’t make them a hypocrite.
AWB- I just learned to stop discussing certain matters with people. Which is why I don’t talk politics much with my friends.
Swear to God, I hear one more, “Geez, you’re pretty smart/nice/tolerant, for a Republican” and I’m going to exercise my Second Amendment rights all over their asses.
Anyways, my suggestion is to avoid those people, and, should you have to deal with those people, stick to business and avoid bringing up any known or possible topics that would land one at the end of one of their tirades.
Then again, I kind of enjoy my lonely existance, so I can’t say it’s a panacea for everyone.
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
Goddamn your righteous hand
I eat innocent meat
The housewife I will beat
The prolife I will kill
What you won’t do I will
I bash myself to sleep
What you sow I will reap
[…]
Get your gunn, get your gunn,
Get your gunn, get your gunn…
[Moderator Note: I had to snip the lyrics; you can’t post song lyrics in full here. Post a link or excerpts. Sorry, Studi.]
When I grow up, I want to be the Minister of Silly Walks.
[Note: This message has been edited by Gaudere]
As an “undecided” on this issue I’ll state for the record that the militant anti-abortion people irk me too… HOWEVER
I find it amazingly curious the bias presented on the subject of protesters posted on this board.
Abortion Rights/Pro-Choice or whatever you want to call them have within their “group” members who are just as militant, and ugly in their defense of their position.
Case in point, a local “fundamentalist” church had put on a big demonstration at a clinic in town that extended over several weeks. It was of course the usual bloody leaflets, shock-counseling, shout downs, etc. Of course, the Abortion Rights/Pro-Choice group responded with equal fervor. Their was one poignent moment, captured by the news, of a priest… kneeling on the sidewalk, across the street from the clinic, Bible open and in prayer… he was IMMEDIATELY surrounded by the Abortion Rights/Pro-Choice group and spat upon, kicked, punched and shoved all while the crowd screamed at the man.
Yet, the anti-abortion crowd is characterized as the only side with militant/violent/intolerant behavior…
Reminds me of a quote (can’t remember the source) I heard regarding the IRA and the British…
“You call me a terrorist while pointing a gun at me?”
You have a very good point, MeanJoe. I’d like to think that if I’d been at that demonstration, I’d have stepped in to protect the priest from being assaulted. There’s no excuse for violence under these circumstances.
It becomes a highly emotional issue on both sides.
I have read some studies about this, as researched by my SO. Interesting to note that most of these extreme right-to-lifers have no real interest in the welfare of the babies (something like 1% of them claim it as their primary motivation) – their real primary motivation is to punish. They often view women getting abortion as being sinners, whores, and baby killing Godless wenches.
Note that many of these same people support the Death Penalty and increased military spending. Pro-life, my @ss.
Also note that most of these people tend towards fundamentalist Christianity, not Catholicism. These are people that believe in a punitive, judgemental God. So for them, to punish sinners is not hypocritical at all.
And finally note that I am not indicting all pro-lifers or Christians, just the extreme few.
I apologize if my post led you to believe that I think only the pro-life side has hateful, idiotic assholes as members. I am only too familiar with the hateful, idiotic assholes on the pro-choice side of the fence.
I’d like to say I’m “undecided” upon the issue of abortion, but the truth of the matter is closer to “I’m hopelessly muddled and can’t make a decision without it being immediately entangled in countless internal contradictions.” If I came off as “I’m pro-choice, and I hate those anti-abortion assholes,” I apologize for misspeaking. My true position would be, “I despise those who 1) feel that violence is an acceptable response to those who differ with them upon this issue and/or 2) feel that the ‘correct’ way to feel on this issue is completely obvious and anyone who disagrees is a moron.”
Again, I apologize.
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
No need to apologize, I did not take your post to indicate that your were one sided on the issue. I only wanted to point out that the opposite also exists. I did not take your OP to be an attack of “my beliefs” just as my response was not a defense of those beliefs, just trying to balance the teeter-tooter so to speak!
I have to say I think your explaination of “undecided” hit the nail straight on the head for me. Many many countless internal contradictions on this issue that make it very hard to fall on one side or the other! I also agree wholeheartedly with your “I despise those who…” comments! Well spoke!!
Thanks for your insights and starting this thread, I’ve really enjoyed it!
May I interject here that a common misperception exists that pro-life people only care about the unborn and do not care about children after they are born? While there are undoubtedly some sick individuals who fit that characterization, most pro-life people are quite concerned with the welfare of those children who are born. Most churches have charitable outreach–including feeding the poor, helping the homeless, providing education, youth services, medical care, etc. Those rather maliciously maligned Baptists are quite active in many charitable ventures that actually give physical aid and assistance to the poor and less fortunate. They are not one of the churches that spends all their money building temples.
Another fact that should be more widely disseminated is that there are waiting lists to adopt children with many disabilities. There are people who do care about these children and are willing to assume the responsibility of raising them if their parents are not interested in doing so. Maybe if more was known about these willing would-be parents, there would not only be fewer abortions of the disabled, but there would also be less abuse, since unwilling parents could turn their “defective” child over to someone who sees that child as desirable.
The only way I can see where they are coming from is to look at other causes people fight for, PETA and Greenpeace come to mind.
They feel the only way to get their message across is to be “in your face.” Which in my mind rarely works. It may bring good press but if they understood the human psyche better, for the most part, they are only pushing other’s in the opposite direction that they intend from these tactics.
I know this is not related except for the intent of the OP, but if organizations like PETA want people to look further into their issues (same with extreme anti-abortion protesters) is to work with the organizations they so oppose. Not through legislation, but means that help all involved. I know that seems far fetched but think about it.
Extreme protesters in the anti-abortion movement are obviously passionate and well, since they go about it the way they do make the entire cause seem like a bunch of loosers. This in turn does the exact opposite of their main intentions.
Here’s my deal, my parents are anti-abortion, I am pro-choice. Neither of us agree to the best way to handle it except in our case not to discuss it. Neither one of us want to see a woman faced with this decision though, this we do agree on, so why can’t the extremist sides see that there has to be a better way than putting an already scared woman in fear of her life, she doesn’t know the extremes these people will go to to stop her. In addition, a lot of these clinics offer health care and education to help prevent pregnancies in the future.
What I think the protesters see is a place that “encourages” abortions, which they don’t. They offer, in most cases like Planned Parenthood, a safe and affordable place to come for reproductive health care. Without it many would not have health care at all…I stray off the topic, but it would be nice if the protestors saw this side.
Why feel the need to pick a side. There are 3 sides to this issue.
My side? A woman’s right to choose. What you folks are often characterizing as pro-abortion is really pro-choice.
I really don’t think anyone wants to see a life terminated, but I don’t think anyone wants to see a female’s life thrown into chaos due to unwanted pregnancy either. I am not sure how to say that to make it sound reasonable, so I apologize if it sounds convoluted.
“I celebrate myself, and sing myself, and what I assume you shall assume, for every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you.” --Whitman
I’m just gonna blandly repeat what I usually say. One time, my third boyfriend Matt and I were having a discussion on this subject. He was pro-life (mildly); I was pro-choice (mildly). We argued for a while and finally we decided that it was pretty stupid for a pair of gay guys to be arguing about abortion.
Anyway, to quote Jennifer Camper, “Let’s make a deal. Men can make abortion laws when mermaids start making shoes.”
Why won’t science say when human life begins? Is this a question it cannot answer? If it can potentially answer it, what is it that is not yet known that, when known, will make answering the question possible?