Irony: when the anti-choice protesters at the abortion clinic remove all one's doubt about being pro-choice.
Among other things, around as many protesters as escorts showed over the course of the morning and there were 60 or so escorts; an escort got elbowed in the face by a protester lunging at a woman and holding a staple gun [the escort may or may not have punched the elbower in retaliation]; ignorant grafitti was sprayed on a clinic window; WHAS 11 filmed all morning; most importantly, women were able to get abortions without being touched by the willfully ignorantprotesters.
I was called an unholy baby killer, told I was participating in the slave trade, that God would show no mercy to the women inside the clinic, reminded that mothering is a woman's role, and that one need not read the Bible since Jesus lives in your heart. This gem came from a Christian clutching his Bible and caught after not believing or having any excuse for God's command in Numbers 31:17-18, as quoted to him by an atheist. And nary a protester cared a whit about "Judge not."
During the morning, though it was the first Saturday I did this, it seemed less intimidating than it now reads typed out and less so when I regaled it to Boyfriend immediately after. It was probably because I never engaged with the protesters--I really have heard all their bullshit over the years, and know just how incoherent their side actually is. They can't be swayed because they neither care about learning why anyone thinks differently nor have the mental tools to think critically. But I overheard plenty, and was shouted at practically all morning. One protester snidely spat out a verse whenever an escort passed her; another told an escort who was a mother that she was the worst of us. This same protester began screaming that all the escorts were punching the staple-gun-wielding-and-face-elbowing protester when he leapt at the car.
What I saw Saturday morning were women trying to keep control of their own lives, volunteers unwilling to let those women be shamed, and the sort of Christians who make the whole faith look like a plague.
...TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lina Thorne
Alpha Whiskey
Kolikalove
eviltwit
Gwendolyn Glover
emma peel
Salon.com
Comments
Glad you survived your encounter with the American Taliban.
Marching right into the lion's den.
Not for me - I'd lose it and hurt someone.
It's funny; the whole time I was reading this, the lyrics from Everlast's WHAT IT'S LIKE were playing in the background of my head.
I've spoken my peace/piece about abortion many times. I salute you for the conviction of your courage.
It was the closest I'll ever come (hopefully) to being a war correspondent. The anti-abortion folks were a very strange group. There were days when the air crackled with the possibility of real violence; it never happened -- much -- but it very well could have.
What I found most fascinating were all the sort of psychological subtexts among the protesters. Most were angry, but they all were angry about different things, few of which had to do with abortion per se. I think a lot of it had to do with a world beyond their control and their frustration at being so powerless, which they bled off by trying to intimidate women on the worst day of their lives.
Of course, some were just assholes.
coachcaptain: I kept my cool mostly because I didn't engage. It would have really rattled me to be the one trying to reason with the protesters, but just hearing it is sort of like life in the Bible belt as usual, except with the volume all the way up.
fingerlakeswanderer: if only there were a way to make the anti-choicers really listen to the stories of women who get abortions. And a good dash of feminist theory, while we're at it.
Tom: I think you're absolutely right. It's the same reason they cling so to their faith but know nothing about it.
Eyesrolledupward: oh, you mention social services and it's like you're speaking a foreign language. "Every child is wanted," they repeat--tell that to the kids who've become wards of state and will remain so until they hit 18. These same people very vocally also oppose government assistance--as do "pro-life" legislators--and cannot understand why that's contradictory.
BikeLizard: indeed. I should have mentioned that this weekend was the state's Right to Life Convention, so more protesters than usual were expected and fewer procedures than usual scheduled. I am reminded of how protesters are now camping in front of some Planned Parenthoods--which in many states, including the ones being hit by the 40 Days of Life protest, do not perform abortions--mostly because they distribute contraception. Insane.
My bumper sticker: If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
To get my fair share of abuse
Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration
If we don't we're gonna blow a 50-amp fuse"
- Rolling Stones, 1969
No. I can. They do it because they really believe that God has told them this is the case.
Credit to you and your empathy for these women who needed help, ma'am.
Instead, it presents another opportunity for the childish left to lambaste religion.
I was once on the other side of this issue when I was younger and single. So I understand your side. When my sister became pregnant, she sent me the sonicgrams on a DVD. That immedialtely changed my position. That is a living thing you helped to destroy. I know you and others will bash me taking the opposite view here but that is fine. Someday, when you're older and wiser and more mature, you'll come to regret your action. It doesn't take bravery to kill unborn life.
Thank you for your good work in helping these women in need.
The protestors are not human, I wouldn't call them monkeys as monkeys are nicer and I hate to put pleasant sheep in their category. Lets just say they are stupid dumbshits, credulous foolish imbeciles with no education and severe IQ defeciency.
Roe v. Wade = Lower Crime Rate
How F'ing hard is that to figure out?
I was in a boys town as a kid, and all it is is gladiator school. Repukekkan Fascist "Christians" just want to control women, they won't adopt the delequints and this is nothing new, listen to Sargaent Krupke.
Scumbags keep the hell out of others people's business you phony patriots!
AUWE
As a man your opinion means- nothing. But out of women's lives- go away!
Since your conclusions are based on complete Fairy Tales your opinion- outside you having zero right to say a damn thing to any woman you don't even know- is in every academic sense worthless. You may think money grubbing preachers who talk fast to scared weak sheeple have opinions as worthy as social scientists, wrong, they don't.
As to getting older, I do not regret any of the decisions I made or second guess the women I supported so they could continue THEIR lives, not stop everything so some self important self appointed half-wit could tell them how to conduct themselves.
THERE IS NO GOD AS YOU BELIEVE!
while you wallow 2 billion godless asians are doing calculus.
AUWE
I never mentioned God nor calculus. I do not understand your reference to Asians and calculus.
I did want to say that not every pro-lifer is a fanatic, nor is every Christian. I'm sorry that there are Christians who resort to violence and intimidation tactics, who forget some of the most basic and important lessons of the faith, and attack with the Bible rather than using it to teach those who are willing to hear. I don't remember ever hearing stories where Jesus wielded a staple gun.
my guess is that you don't really care about living things unless they're unborn humans, is that correct?
Because the way I see it, the "sanctity of life" is most frequently upheld by:
-meat-eating,
-hugely pro-military,
-Crusade-loving,
-people who oppose gun control.
So yeah, that may or may not be you, but it certainly seems to be emblematic of "your side."
Women have a right to choose whether or not to have a baby. Period.
It doesn't get any simpler. It might be hard to understand, and you may think it's immoral, but no one else really cares. It's a tough choice to face, and my wife and I HAVE faced it. It wasn't easy, but if we hadn't had that choice, who knows where we'd be now?
It's easy to draw a big line and say, "no! all abortion is wrong!" If that's so, then go ahead and finish the project. Draw your bold lines around the rest of your life's dimensionality, and stop doing anything at all.
But leave everyone else alone.
The fallacy is called "mud slinging" and both sides do it. It produces a lot of cheering on talk-shows, fist-fights at rallies, and smug looks on the faces of those who use it. When the user slings the mud, he or she behaves like they've somehow scored a point in the argument.
All these debates over morals in our country usually devolve into a great festival of character assassination and name calling and at the end of this ineffective verbal brawl we are no further than we were when we started.
there's a perfect example in the comments following this article. Jenlillith Beta rightfully pointed out how crazy the protesters were and was then supported by several comments. Obviously the tone of these comments was pro-choice. Then...enter John II. While John II's comments pulled no punches, his approach was certainly not the same as the protesters maligned by Jenlillith Beta. But, of course, angry, thoughtless, and abusive commentary against John II followed his post.
We all, both abortion clinic and Proposition 8 protesters, need to calm down and just address the arguments, discuss things rationally.
So here's my attempt and I think it comes to this: either there is a God, who we are supposed to obey in the first place and who proscribes abortion, or there is not and it makes no sense to deny a person the right to abort a fetus.
But whether I have it right or not, nobody has any reason to come out yelling, screaming, elbowing, vandalizing or abusing. Let's just look at it calmly.
Ha, hmm, no not correct. Had to think about it for a minute. But, no that is not correct.
"Because the way I see it, the "sanctity of life" is most frequently upheld by:
-meat-eating,
-hugely pro-military,
-Crusade-loving,
-people who oppose gun control.
" - silliM
Ha, wow. Meat-eating? Crusade-loving? What on earth are you talking about?
Yes, I oppose gun control and am pro-military; therefore what? I'm against life? That is a rather childish suggestion.
But all of that is just irrelevant rubbish anyway. It doesn't matter if I'm the worst person in the world on every other issue. Instead of trying to paint John II as a bad guy, why not address the issue at hand? Is abortion the destruction of human life?
Rosemary: another ever so true bumper sticker. [And glad you like the icon! Been using it for years.]
AHC: the escort who quoted said he has a Bible with that and numerous cruel passages marked for just such occasions.
Alpha Whiskey: it's all in familiarity with their tactics and arguments, and not engaging. That and, honestly, I do hate confrontation.
Kolika: absolutely! A number of religious people are near and dear to me--but they happen to be sane and rational, as well as faithful.
John: thank you. And, male escorts are always especially welcome--naturally, many protesters will show more respect to men than to women. Something to think about!
John II: isn't it also childish to throw a tantrum because people are doing something you don't like? That's all the protesters were doing, in many cases. The ones silently praying, while in my opinion being self-serving, are not the ones I'm talking about in this post.
At any rate, for me, it comes down to whether one puts women or fetuses first. Obviously I care more about the women who already have lives and stories. I also do a lot of work trying to get people real sex education and making contraception more widely available--which are the two ways one actually prevents abortion--and support politicians who believe in government assistance, which is one of the best ways to help women who might just starve if they did decide to keep the fetus.
What are you doing to alleviate the problem, other than ignoring the point of a pro-choice post on a blog?
Oahusurfer: while I greatly appreciate your enthusiasm, I enjoy dealing with my detractors too!
sickofstupid: yes, yes. I do think part of the problem is the label... I'm pro-choice, but I don't take abortion lightly or hope the rate of abortion increases. I'll be sure to read your post.
SalilM: if only they'd keep their religion out of policy... thanks for your comment.
Nic: while I agree with you that what we need most is a rational discussion, where I most disagree is thinking that all people are capable of it. I suppose I didn't quite capture how set in their views the protesters are for you; I've tried to talk to such people, and it's impossible. My worldview, context, and reality are totally different than these people's, sometimes. Furthermore, this post isn't about whether one should be pro-choice or anti-choice. It's about what happens at the clinic.
I have always maintained that we must strive to keep a healthy dialogue intact, but I don't believe we can when there is no common reality. I've discussed abortion elsewhere, too:
http://www.jenlillith.com/search/label/abortion
[Pardon my anger in some past posts, but frankly, I do think anger is sometimes justified.]
My pro-choice stance hinges on thinking the women walking among us are more important fetuses. I do not believe life is sacred, or that religion has any place in policy. I also think abortion will become rare as people know about sexuality and health, and contraception becomes very widely available. I do not wish abortions to be common, but I do think women must be able to direct their own lives. Prioritizing one does not mean one does not care about the other, whether one is pro-choice or anti-choice--and that is the kindest thing I can say for the anti-choicers.
What at least you are honest. That is a very claryifying statement.
" I also think abortion will become rare as people know about sexuality and health, and contraception becomes very widely available." - Jen
Nonsense. If you believe that you are a fool. Most people know they are rolling the dice with unprotected sex. Condoms are available in every local supermarket and convenience store.
" I do not wish abortions to be common,..." - Jen
Why? You just admitted that you don't think life is sacred. So why do you care how common abortions are?
Well, at least you are honest. That is a very claryifying statement.
I'll agree with that statement if I can substitute the word "reality" with "ground".
You stated that you do not believe life is sacred. I don't take that comment too seriously because you are a young chick with very little life experience. You've created an identity for yourself that is meant to be rebellious, enlightened, and righteous. That is typical for many college girls.
When you get older, perhaps have a child of your own, I suspect you'll be ashamed and embarrassed that you once stated that you do not believe life is sacred.
Posted last comment before I finished my thought.
Lacking common ground (reality?) is a big deal in any culture. This is the reason why conservatives are not fans of multiculturism. There needs to be some base common ground or reality in any culture.
I'm sure you love to say how important "diversity" is. To some extent, diversity is fine. But, again, without that base common ground society will always be at eachother's throats.
You said life is not sacred. Can you understand the anger of someone who believes the opposite? Can you imagine seeing young pregnant women being escorted into a building where their babies will be brutally destroyed. I'm not defending their actions. But I wonder if you can at least put yourself in their shoes.
1. You ought to do some research before you call people online fools, and even misspell "clarifying" as you do so. I have. Ever visit Guttmacher, or any peer-reviewed journals on anthropology, sociology, gender studies, or policy? Because if you'd bothered, you'd see that the conclusions about sex ed and contraception are substantiated by research, not just logic and opinion.
2. I don't wish abortions to be common because they are the result of unwanted pregnancies. If it isn't linguistically obvious enough, unwanted pregnancies are unwanted, for any number of reasons. I'd rather people didn't have to deal with such mistakes/misfortunes, and that every pregnancy was wanted.
3. I said reality because I find it to be the more accurate term. My reality does not include the supernatural [as such], and involves ideas that never enter the minds of fundies--like heteronormativity, for example. This doesn't make me superior, but it makes my whole experience of the world different.
4. You stated that you do not believe life is sacred. I don't take that comment too seriously because you are a young chick with very little life experience. You've created an identity for yourself that is meant to be rebellious, enlightened, and righteous. That is typical for many college girls.
Have you ever wondered or cared why people like you get called sexist, misogynist, or worse? It's because of sentiments like this. And do you know why I don't think life is sacred? It's because I don't believe ANYTHING is sacred. I'm an atheist who believes our experience of the sacred/divine/supernatural is how we explain that which we just don't understand yet.
Just because I don't believe it's sacred doesn't mean I think it worthless or meaningless. As I've said, I just think women are more important than fetuses.
Also, I'm a grad student, not a "college girl." Get it right if you're going to try and knock people bothering to educate themselves.
Regarding life experience and anger of those who feel differently, um, you apparently don't know anything about my life experiences. I've been a complete anti-choicer before in my life, and a true evangelical. And then I learned some things, grew up, and changed my views. [No, that doesn't mean I had an abortion. I have never been pregnant, thanks to educating myself. Just to be very clear.] What infuriates me is when people cannot see that they want to insert religion into policy. Anything involving sacredness is, plainly, religious in nature and therefore not exactly constitutional. Diversity has nothing to do with it--ignorance is the problem.
What's more, the "pro-life" side is markedly anti-sex-education, against making contraception more widely available, and very much against the social welfare programs that help kids and mothers. Being anti-choice is largely about being anti-woman and sex-negativity. Prove me wrong by being for real sex ed and contraception and giving a damn about children who are wards of the state. Do you care about reducing abortion, or only about shaming women who disagree with you?
All you have are snide comments about being older and male because you apparently have nothing going for your life. I'll ask again what you're doing to reduce abortions other than harrassing and trying and failing to insult people online.
Comment with constructive thoughts, or go elsewhere.
John II-- you are a compassionate person too--you said you were pro-choice before viewing your niece or nephrew on a sonogram. Then you had an epiphany that since a fetus is a living thing, you could no longer be pro-choice. And to you life is sacred. I understand what you are getting at, having had children after losing my religion I have felt that having children is an encounter with the sacred or divine-- of course, I have no particular reason to trust that my feelings are TRUTH, but I can acknowledge them for what they are.
John II-- if you firmly believe that all life is sacred, wouldn't logic dictate vegetarianism, pacifism, surrendering of deadly weapons? Buddhist monks live this principal, shouldn't you do so as well?
Or do you have a selective approach to whose lives are and are not sacred and worth saving?
I am pro-choice, because I put the woman's rights above those of the fetus. Even though I have been pregnant three times, all of them wanted, having experienced 30 months of pregnancy and so far 3.5 years of motherhood, I am even more pro-choice now than I was before getting pregnant. I do believe all life is sacred, but am also aware the way unwanted children in this country are treated as so much sacred garbage. Unlike Angelina Jolie-- I haven't the means to adopt or foster rejected and maltreated children at this point in my life-- do you??? Will you???
I am asking that as a rhetorical question only. My mother-in-law, a second wave feminist/activist-- is stridently pro-choice and she couldn't bring herself to watch the sonogram video during my first pregnancy. She felt the cognitive dissonance would be too much. So I don't think that your position is irrational or wrong, per se, just that it is based on a very limited perspective.
The government cannot "establish" religion, but that doesn't mean that individuals cannot advocate for positions that are based on or inspired by religious faith. In a democracy everyone gets to participate, not just non-religious people.
Mishima: I do not at all believe religious people should be excluded. But I do believe policy should be based on data and reality, not any particular religious view. Plenty of moral principles can stand on their own minus religion, but many more cannot.
Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.
Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.
Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:
"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."
Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life". The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life, it gains full human status after birth only.
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus. Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health. With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.
The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterwards, it is considered subhuman until it is born. Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.
This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.
There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother: One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.
Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.
Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance. Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.
Apparently, the New Testament is even more permissive than the Old. Paul claims Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' teachings and all of Paul's other moral instructions altogether. They ignore the New Testament as a whole, and focus only on a single verse from one of Paul's epistles to justify their hedonism.
Can you imagine pro-choice Christians telling pro-lifers, "We don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' We don't have to 'work' for our salvation." ?
Or how about a pro-choice Christian minister telling his flock, "You don't have to protect unborn children. That's 'good works.' You don't have to 'work' for your salvation. Paul says Jesus told him three times, 'my grace is sufficient for thee.' Abortion, abortion, abortion. You don't have to protect unborn children..." ?
We really live in a secular society. Secular arguments are religiously neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.
Again, the pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. It's already stereotyped as being predominately Christian (Catholic, fundamentalist, born again, etc.) and will need to become completely secular as it attempts to convince the courts, legislatures, universities, philosophers, ethicists, etc. that human zygotes and embryos should be regarded as legal persons.
People often appeal to moral principles that are derived from religious worldviews, and not just in the case of abortion.
For example, let's say that in my reading of the Bible I am inspired by the large number of passages that command that we care for and protect the poor. So I advocate for various social programs that help the poor. Is my advocacy of such programs inappropriate because it has been inspired by religion? Since I want to take some of your tax money and use it to help the poor, am I imposing a religious viewpoint on you?
Vasu writes: "The Bible supports abortion rights."
I suggest to you that the passages you mentioned did not envision the large-scale intentional destruction of human life that we see in modern times. There is a very great difference, for example, between an accidental miscarriage caused by two men fighting, and abortions done on an industrial scale, almost a million a year in the U.S. alone.
One could also say that the Bible "supports war." In fact, many passages do. But those passages were written long before modern weapons with hideous destructive power were developed, weapons that can kill hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people in a single strike. Today, a few soldiers with automatic weapons can kill in a single day as many people as a small army could in ancient times.
In saying "the Bible supports this-or-that" it's important to look at the context and the actual situation that existed at that time.
Point being, religion can inform your worldview as much as you like, but if you can't make a secular argument for it I do not believe, and I don't think the founders believed, that it should make it into policy.
The sad truth is that you likely exhibited more human compassion in one Saturday then the protesters have in their entire lives.
Empathy becomes you.
As a father I understand the point some are trying to make with their stories of sonograms and such.
The point they are missing though is that those fetuses represent something that they are not currently. They represent future love, future hopes and future dreams. Their existence is amplified because they are wanted.
For women wanting or needing abortions these collection of cells don't have a positive future representation and often they have a negative one.
Mishima tried to make a point: "In saying "the Bible supports this-or-that" it's important to look at the context and the actual situation that existed at that time."
I would ask him and others to apply that same point to abortion. Consider that the woman and her doctor have THE MOST INTIMATE knowledge of the the context and the actual situation.
No one, I'll repeat, no one is in a better position to make the decision than the woman involved.
I hate to say it, but because of the brandishing of fetus pictures I've become pretty immune to them. And imagine if if escorts carried pictures of women right after being raped to prove their point. Puts that tactic into perspective, I think.
It was good to meet you and all the righteous Louisvillians this weekend!
Keep it up; I can't think of what would happen without the escorts there at that clinic.
It does seem really pitiful that escorts are so necessary, doesn't it?
So here's the same question I'll ask any "pro-lifer": are you actually doing anything to reduce abortion--that is, promote real sex ed and wider availability of contraception--or do you just pester pro-choice bloggers?