Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
In fact, reading stuff like this makes me consider avoiding ANY travel south of the Mason-Dixon line. What a bunch of sick, sad lunatics...

<snip>

House subcommittee approves anti-abortion monument

(Columbia) April 23, 2003 - A commission would have a year to design an anti-abortion monument. It would be a six foot statue on a two foot base, similar to the George Washington on the State House steps.

The nation's first president, Senator Ben Tillman and Strom Thurmond are leaders recognized for achievements and have monuments on the State House grounds.

Rep. Thomas Keegan (R) Horry, says the anti-abortion monument proposed for the grounds makes a different statement, "Those that have great potential, but are never born because of a decision many regret."

</snip>

The full story can be found here:
http://www.wistv.com/global/story.asp?s=1244405&ClientType=Printable


overspent
...hunting for a new planet to call home...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The deep south is never high on my list of vacation areas.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
overspent
...hunting for a new planet to call home...


Darling, if you find one, would you please let me know?

This place is getting freakin' SCARY.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The deep south is never high on my list of vacation areas.

That is sad, you are missing out on some interesting cultural (and food) experiences. Actually, my main thing is the food but you aren't going to get that landscape anywhere else. Sorry you feel that way about it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
In fact, reading stuff like this makes me consider avoiding ANY travel south of the Mason-Dixon line. What a bunch of sick, sad lunatics...

Wow! Talk about "tolerance!" So if we (as someone from south of the Mason Dixon line) are from the south we are "sick, sad lunatics?"

And because people there are anti-abortion, we are "sick, sad lunatics?"

Personally, though I'm anti-abortion so I might be biased, would think that liberals who preach about the importance of "ideals," etc. would respect the rights of those who see abortion as killing of a child. You don't have to agree with them, but this is something that to us "whackos" who think that abortion is wrong feel really strongly about. Probably stronger than you feel about "rights." Yeah, we are "horrible, right stealing people" (though I do believe in the right of someone to smoke in a bar) who have the NERVE to see abortion as legalized form of murder.

You know, this is why I would never identify with one side or the other. I respect the legal right of a person to have an abortion, but does that mean I shouldn't oppose it? Or those who I elect shouldn't oppose it? I mean, people opposed the war because they didn't feel it was moral. What about those of us who oppose abortion because we don't find it moral (I also oppose the death penalty, racial profiling, sex discrimination, sexuality discrimination, marijuana legislation, etc.).

Again, this is why I can't say I'm "liberal" or "conservative." In this case, you have someone who is on a liberal board stating that it is "wrong" that people are fighting for their moral beliefs (and that their ELECTED officials are doing the same thing), yet when people were opposing war it was good because they were fighting for their moral beliefs.

I realize that some people don't see abortion the same way I do--but if you are going to be TOLERANT then respect my view that it is equal to murder (actually, I think that killing an innocent baby in worse than murder). It is a double-standard. Fighting for one's beliefs is fine as long as it goes with some group's ideals (liberal, conservative, religious group, etc.). Otherwise, it is just intolerant and wrong.

Yeah, that's right, I'm a sick, sad lunatic because I am from the south and because I fight for what I believe in. Talk about intolerance, you just labeled an entire part of a country as something...WOW--WHAT GALL!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I respect the legal right of a person to have an abortion, but does that mean I shouldn't oppose it? . . .I realize that some people don't see abortion the same way I do--but if you are going to be TOLERANT then respect my view that it is equal to murder

By "oppose it," I suspect you mean "work to make it illegal."

If we agree to respect your view about abortion, and promise never to force you to have one, will you please respect ours, and stop trying to impose your morality on everyone?

No one is asking you to have an abortion. Please stop trying to deny women who wish to have control over their own bodies the right to have an abortion if they believe it's the right thing to do.

It is a double-standard. Fighting for one's beliefs is fine as long as it goes with some group's ideals

You see, the problem is that it's our rights you wish to take away, and our moral views you wish to supplant with your own. The problem is that the "ideals" to which you refer aren't shared by all, so the only fair solution is to allow each individual woman to decide for herself the use to which her body may be put.

Honestly, we women don't need someone else to tell us what is and what is not moral. We can, each of us, decide perfectly well for ourselves.

So, if you'd just butt out of our lives, and refrain from doing what you think is immoral, we'll all get along just fine.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If we agree to respect your view about abortion, and promise never to force you to have one, will you please respect ours, and stop trying to impose your morality on everyone?

So, if you'd just butt out of our lives, and refrain from doing what you think is immoral, we'll all get along just fine.


When I can kill someone who aggravates me or makes me angry or was "unplanned" then I will be glad to. You would agree that murder should be illegal (at least I hope). We cretins see abortion no different than murder. So unless you think that murder being illegal is someone imposing their "morality" on you, then I don't see that as what is going on. Also, why are their social programs? In essence (at least an argument I've heard many times) is because it is wrong to let people suffer if they can't help themselves. That is a moral belief (which I agree with). So why isn't welfar "imposing morals?"

Again, I see stopping an abortion the exact thing as stopping a person from killing their newborn or abusing a child. And, you know, if you think that is me trying to "impose" morals then I don't know what to tell you. If you think it is ok to kill newborns or abuse children, then I guess it is. I understand that people don't all feel that way about abortion--that pro choice people feel it is different. While I agree that exists, it doesn't mean I should accept it. There are also people out there that believe that beating their children every day will make them stronger people--should I respect THEIR rights?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
We cretins see abortion no different than murder.

If you regard an undifferentiate mass of cells as a human being, then you really aren't very bright.

A four-month fetus has no synapses between brain cells. It has no mind. It has no wants, dreams, wishes, hopes, attachments, plans, fears, joys. It has no attachment to life other than that which a goat fetus would have at the same stage of its development.

Do you believe that a woman should be forced by law to provide a kidney for her child, if that child needs it? Do you believe that there should be a law forcing everyone to donate bone marrow? Do you believe that, even to save the life of another, any living human should be forced to give blood? Do you believe that your body is your own, to do with as you wish, or do you believe that it belongs to others? Do you really believe that the woman who carries a fetus within her has relinquished the right to ownership of her body to that fetus?

Do you believe that she has a right to an abortion if carrying the child to term will endanger her life? What if carrying the child to term will mean that there won't be enough money in the family to feed the children already alive and kicking and thinking and wanting and laughing and crying and needing? What if carrying the child of one's rapist within one's own body will be a burden so revolting that the woman would rather die herself than do it? What if the child has been diagnosed in utero with a devastating disability which will ensure that the child won't survive for more than a few hours, but will suffer pain during those few hours of life? What if the child is hydroencephalic?

What if the individual carrying the fetus is 13 years old?

What if the father of the fetus is that 13-year-old's own father?

What a morally certain position you hold -- on behalf of other people -- and wish to impose on everyone.

Rather, I would say, what a simplistic view of morality you seem to take.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
By the way, I'm not fighting against rights of women as much as for the rights of babies. You don't have to see it that way. You can see me as bad and trying to steal your rights. I see it completely the other way--me fighting for the rights of children. I do this in other things. I fight for medical research on diseases that affect kids. I fight for education. I fight against child abuse.

Fighting against child abuse is not the same as "trying to take away the rights of angry people." Fighting against the death penalty could be viewed as "fighting against the rights of a state." Fighting for social programs could be viewed as "fighting against the rights of anti-welfare tax payers," etc. But people don't usually see it that way. Abortion may be different to you, but it is no different to me. You say I'm taking away your rights as a woman, I say I am fighting for a baby's right as a human. You can think I'm a right-stealing, worthless human being because I fight for the rights of babies--that is fine. It doesn't hurt me in the least. If I go through my life being the only anti-abortion person left on the planet, and if everyone wants to roast me for it, then that is fine. But I will live my life knowing that I will "fight" (I use that loosely--I don't protest or anything as I don't see it serving any purpose).

I "fight" by refusing to accept abortion as moral but more importantly legal. I do not see the issue as a moral issue or a religious issue, and I think the biggest problem with the pro-life agenda is that they often do. I "fight" by saying that everyone has a right to live, including the "unborn." You don't agree. You think I'm trying to take away rights. Well, I'm not, at all. Instead, I'm trying to give rights to those that have none (kind of like opening the borders to people from poverty-stricken nations). I don't think I'm going to change anyone, nor am I trying to. But I take great offense to being labeled as "bad person" for wanting to protect children. I, personally, did not label people who are pro-choice as bad. I simply said that I see killing an unborn baby as no different than killing a born baby, but I respect the right to believe otherwise. However, I also hold some standards of RIGHTS (not morals) including the right for a person to live... So sue me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you regard an undifferentiate mass of cells as a human being, then you really aren't very bright.

Hehe, good ad hominem. You are free to think what you want of my intelligence, but I am fairly sure that I could get a few nationally respected professors who would take up for me.

A four-month fetus has no synapses between brain cells. It has no mind. It has no wants, dreams, wishes, hopes, attachments, plans, fears, joys. It has no attachment to life other than that which a goat fetus would have at the same stage of its development.

Ok, there are people with mental defects that give them no "wants, dreams, wishes, etc." Should they be killed?

Do you believe that a woman should be forced by law to provide a kidney for her child, if that child needs it?

Nope, but I would hope they would do it.

Do you believe that there should be a law forcing everyone to donate bone marrow?

Nope. Nothing to do with the issue.

Do you believe that, even to save the life of another, any living human should be forced to give blood?

No, but I would hope people would do that.

Do you believe that your body is your own, to do with as you wish, or do you believe that it belongs to others?

I believe it is my own. Does that mean I should be able to kill someone? Does that mean that the body of a fetus belongs to someone else?

Do you really believe that the woman who carries a fetus within her has relinquished the right to ownership of her body to that fetus?

I believe that the fetus is its own body. I believe that I can't just throw my baby in a ditch because it is hurting my sanity (and wallet) to take care of it.

Do you believe that she has a right to an abortion if carrying the child to term will endanger her life?

Honestly, I think that is a difficult issue and is also rare. I, personally, would never allow my child to be killed to save my life or my wife's life (nor would my wife). If both were going to die--in that case I would trust in God (NOTE--I UNDERSTAND NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES IN GOD AND AM NOT TRYING TO FORCE THAT ON PEOPLE). I think this is a very different issue from "general" abortion, though.

What if carrying the child to term will mean that there won't be enough money in the family to feed the children already alive and kicking and thinking and wanting and laughing and crying and needing?

Right, that's the kid's fault. Kill him.

What if carrying the child of one's rapist within one's own body will be a burden so revolting that the woman would rather die herself than do it?

I think that is probably a hard issue--but did the fetus rape someone? Can I kill a rapist's child if I am raped?

What if the child has been diagnosed in utero with a devastating disability which will ensure that the child won't survive for more than a few hours, but will suffer pain during those few hours of life? What if the child is hydroencephalic?

I was diagnosed with cancer. Should I kill myself? Should my mom be allowed to kill me because I took money from the family?

What if the individual carrying the fetus is 13 years old?

Oh, good point. Let's kill it then. What if the 13 year old has the baby and realizes it is too hard for her.

What if the father of the fetus is that 13-year-old's own father?

Right, that happens daily. Again, very different from "general" abortion.

What a morally certain position you hold -- on behalf of other people -- and wish to impose on everyone.

Rather, I would say, what a simplistic view of morality you seem to take.


Hehe. Yep. I'm horrible for opposing murder and not bright enough to see abortion and murder as too different things. You are speaking down on me like I'm some bad person. I can't help the way I believe, just as you can't help the way you believe. I believe abortion is murder, you believe it is someone's right. Who is right? Who knows. But I think that the purpose of a Constitution, of Congress, of elections, of a legal system is that we can fight for what we believe in. I don't agree with going out and bombing abortion clinics or whatever, but I also don't think that just because something is legal I should just say, "Oh, cool." You judge me for believing something but think it is wrong for someone to judge a homosexual or an abortion doctor. You say I'm taking rights away (when I actually haven't done anything, really), while it is ok for my money to go to a welfare mom driving around in a Mercedes (yes, I know one personally)--which is taking away my rights to use my money the way I please. You can blast me for believing what I believe all you want. It's fine. I respect your beliefs, but I also believe that a fetus deserves the same rights as anyone else. Yep, I'm horrible.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Let me just note, I flamed no one yet I'm being flamed. I simply presented a counter-view. Anyway, I should've known better. I should've just let someone paint the entire pro-life movement and more importantly the entire south in a totally negative light.

Imagine if I came on here and did the same thing about gays or blacks? So it is ok when someone is speaking out against liberal (or conservative or whatever) ideals to BLAST THEM, but it is not ok for someone to speak "anti-liberal" ideals. Great!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
By the way, I'm not fighting against rights of women as much as for the rights of babies

Oh Gaaaawd! Puh-leeeeeze!

This is *such* a load of *crap*.

If you anti-women's-rights people were truly for the child, here's what an anti-abortion protest would look like:

Scene: the front of an abortion clinic. A crowd of protesters stands around the door. A young woman nervously approaches the door.

Protester: Excuse me, miss. Are you coming here to get an abortion?

Woman: Um...

Protester: Well, if you are, I just want you to know you have a choice. We'd like you to have the baby, then give it to us, and we will raise it for you, make sure it has all the necessities and love it needs. Or, if you'd like to keep it, we will provide financial and emotional support for you and the child. Now won't you please reconsider your decision?

OK, let's see a show of hands. How many anti-abortion protests look like this?

Hello? Hello? Anyone?

This issue of abortion isn't about the child. Never has been. It's about power. The anti-abortion group (really anti-women's rights group) wants power over a woman's body, sexuality, and free choice.

Please, don't even try to feed us this bullsh!t about it being for the child.

Ellen
not even trying to be civil; what's the point?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
While it is pretty sad to have a monument like this, I can assure you the South is not ALL like that. I have lived in TN and VA. While I am not a fan of living in the South, I have enjoyed visiting the South, and learning more about it.

Not all Southerners are sad, sick, or even loony. So I would cut some slack there.

After all there are some odd Northerners too you know!

Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not all Southerners are sad, sick, or even loony. So I would cut some slack there.

Is Texas considered The South?

I have Texas relatives who are *very* liberal, who are just sick that Shrub keeps getting elected. And of course, Molly Ivins is from Texas, too.

Ellen

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, since I stated more than once that I am against these types of protests, I'm not sure what your point is. As someone planning to be a foster parent, your scenario is EXACTLY what I plan on doing, although I will not go to the front door of an abortion clinic. I would go to Planned Parenthood or a similar organization if it is asked of me to talk to a parent, but I wouldn't tell them they were going to hell or anything.

It's about power. The anti-abortion group (really anti-women's rights group) wants power over a woman's body, sexuality, and free choice.

And you want to talk about bullsh!t? Wow! I think that sexuality should be totally embraced, and a woman should have total right over her body. I just finished writing a 46 page paper on why I thought that obscenity laws, vibrator statutes, anti-pornography laws, and anti-sodomy laws should be reconsidered and mostly overturned (besides child porn laws). Only difference between my views of rights and yours is that I don't see a fetus as a "woman's body" any more than I see a 10 year old dictating what a mother does with her body (like where she drives around to, etc.).

You have a stereotype of pro-life people as these religious extremists who think that people need to be "saved," etc. Going through cancer, I became opposed to suffering of ANY child including one that is unborn. Maybe watching The Silent Scream made me a bad person (in your eyes) but I saw something that responded the exact same way that my newborn niece responded to blood being drawn.

Now, I never said that the anti-abortion movement was always with these beliefs in mind. There are religious beliefs and moral beliefs involved. I don't know of anyone that thinks that women should have less power and includes abortion in that, but I guess it happens. However, I don't see it that way. That is the thing. You'd be upset if some politician painted all gays as "sinners that should have no rights," yet you have no trouble painting all people who aren't pro-life at wanting to take away women's power. If you knew my wife, it would be very likely that she would disagree. I have a very, very soft spot for children. You can doubt my motives all you want to, it should increases strength in my point that when someone has extreme views they often generalize. I never stated that people who are pro-choice are bad people are baby killers. I said that I don't see abortion and murder as different, but the law doesn't see it that way and others may not. I never said that pro-choice people will go to hell or anyone who considers an abortion has "issues." I simply stated that I feel sick every time I consider abortion. I generally don't even consider the woman in the issue but instead the baby.

So you can say whatever you want about pro-life people or about my motives, but I also don't think you should get angry when someone with an extreme view on the other side (that pro choice people are evil) present their views (a view I personally do not support).

There is no need to be civil when you are going to make leaps that are untrue. The leap itself is enough.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Please, don't even try to feed us this bullsh!t about it being for the child.

Ellen
not even trying to be civil; what's the point?


Ellen,

For the most part, I agree with you. I would venture to guess that 90% of the people in this country who consider themselves "pro-life" really have in mind finding a way to put the reigns on women's sexual liberties -- and that would include 90% of the women who are against abortion rights.
It's a religious thing -- this obsession with chastity and horror of "promiscuity." I also suspect it's a jealousy thing.

But there are some -- not a lot, but some -- who really do believe that a 2-minute-old fetus is an actual person whose existence is more important than anything in the life of the woman who carries it -- including her health, her career, the rest of her family, her other responsibilities -- even her life. They believe that the act of sex is a "contract" to bear any child which may be conceived -- even if birth control failed, even if she was raped, even if she's a child herself. They romanticize the fetus -- thinking of it as an "innocent babe," and confer upon it in their minds all of the attributes of a fully-formed child. They would restrict even the "morning after" pill, because they regard the "child" as an "innocent" whose well-being is the full responsibility of the women in whose body it resides.

They fail to take into consideration that this society -- indeed, every society -- treats children as fungible. We complain about the costs of education, we refuse to grant the right to full health care to every child which is born, we refuse to fund day care for children whose parents couldn't feed it if they didn't work full time but whose wages won't pay for both food and child care. We, as a society, resent these dependent beings, who cost money but produce nothing -- but, at the same time, we glorify the fetus as an abstraction of "innocence."

It's hypocritical and it's cruel -- both to women, whom they would have bear all of the responsibilities, dangers, and burdens of pregnancy, childbirth and parenting, and to the children themselves, often born into abject poverty, with little to no hope of a future they would choose for themselves if given the opportunity. Nor do they wish society to bear the costs and moral burden of severly deformed or mentally-deficient children who languish in institutions because no one is willing to give them the 24-hour-a-day care, love, and wholly selfless attention -- not just from childhood, but throughout their lives -- that millions of such unwanted, hopeless children and adults require.

An aborted fetus is far luckier than many children who are born, and than many of the adults whom these unwanted children ultimately become. The patent lie that any life is better than no life at all informs the "right-to-life" movement, and it's part romanticism and part a cynical attempt to punish women for the "transgression" of sex.

I understand your anger, Ellen, and share it. I know that there are those who sincerely think that abortion is "murder," that the fetus is an actual person, and that sex is optional to a healthy adult life. I would feel more sympathetic to their beliefs if their beliefs weren't so centered on "life" itself, but acknowledged the realities which render many lives hardly -- or not at all -- worth the living. No child which is unloved, or abused, or must go to bed hungry or to school without breakfast should be allowed to be born into a nation as rich as ours but unwilling to pony up to care for its children. It's bad enough that these people want dominion over my body and yours. What's worse is that they're content to see children suffer, as long as no one gets to have sex without "consequences."

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Molly Ivins is from Texas, too.

Bless her little heart.

Between her and Maureen Dowd, I have my morning smug satisfaction with female insight and wit.

SLL
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wow! Talk about "tolerance!" So if we (as someone from south of the Mason Dixon line) are from the south we are "sick, sad lunatics?"

Allow me to clarify my previous statement, which appears to have been taken out of context, partly due to my own poor sentence structure:

Legislators who would spend TAXPAYERS' MONEY on a large, publicly displayed statue of a FETUS are sick, sad lunatics. And people who support the approval of said display are sick, sad lunatics. In my own humble opinion, of course, which I believe I'm still entitled to express under the First Amendment -- unless it's been repealed in the last 5 minutes or so. (I'm assuming such an action would make our top news ticker here at work... though I'm no longer quite as confident of that as I used to be.)

I DO NOT believe that ALL Southerners are sick, sad lunatics. I have some very good friends who happen to reside in the South, and they are neither sick, nor sad, nor lunatics. I can't speak for the rest of the South, since I've only visited a few cities south of the Mason-Dixon (Washington, Richmond and Atlanta come to mind), and they seemed to have no greater or fewer number of sick, sad lunatics than anyplace else I've ever been in the world.

To sum up: In my opinion, the world is full of sick, sad lunatics -- some of whom happen to reside in Columbia, South Carolina.

Hope that clears things up for you!

overspent
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Legislators who would spend TAXPAYERS' MONEY on a large, publicly displayed statue of a FETUS are sick, sad lunatics. And people who support the approval of said display are sick, sad lunatics.

Like you said, that is your opinion. However, if the TAXPAYERS are the ones that approve of that, more power to them. I mean, people spend TAXPAYERS' MONEY on a lot of things I don't agree with, but that is the whole thing, it is the TAXPAYERS' (plural) money not just MY money. Now, that said, I am not sure what the purpose of a big giant fetus would be, but I think these people feel VERY, VERY, VERY strong about the issue and if that makes them "sick and sad" in your opinion, then I guess that is ok. It was the tone more than anything. I think if enough STATE TAXPAYERS' feel something is appropriate for their STATE then I feel that is their right to put it up... I wouldn't put up a big giant fetus. If it were me, I would try education on birth control, attempt to get more openness on pregnancy, try to take the stigma away from sexuality and offer more programs where people considering abortion can go and discuss all the options... I imagine we agree on the fact that putting a big fetus up is serving no purpose. That said, overall, I really feel like they think they are doing the right thing. Right or wrong, I think that should be respected.

In my own humble opinion, of course, which I believe I'm still entitled to express under the First Amendment -- unless it's been repealed in the last 5 minutes or so.

Well, since we are on a message board, the First Amendment is pretty meaningless (unless the Garner's are government agents).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The deep south is never high on my list of vacation areas.

It's a little ironic about South Carolina. I went to college in Columbia, and one thing about Columbia is that the gay bars have a hard time staying in business. Why? Because for the most part, they are not needed. The gays largely go to the same bars as everyone else, and nobody pays it much attention. There's no need for a special bar.

Of course, once you get ten miles out of town, it's a whole different ballgame.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I simply presented a counter-view.

Actually, I would say that you presented are rant. Your tone certainly opened the door to being flamed.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Scene: the front of an abortion clinic. A crowd of protesters stands around the door. A young woman nervously approaches the door.

Protester: Excuse me, miss. Are you coming here to get an abortion?

Woman: Um...

Protester: Well, if you are,


More importantly, these protesters would also be pro-birth control; after all, the best way to avoid an abortion is to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But for some reason, most of these protesters don't want birth control information given out.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, since we are on a message board, the First Amendment is pretty meaningless (unless the Garner's are government agents).

This Garner guy in Baghdad whose responsibility should be to avoid massacres of civilians got another brother?

Que Dios nos coja confesados a todos, then!

Abe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Actually, I would say that you presented are rant. Your tone certainly opened the door to being flamed.

My tone was no different than the tone of the post I was replying to, and all I stated was why PRO-LIFE people feel the way they do, not making blanket statements about pro-choice people. But of course, it won't be seen that way and I should've known that.

It would be like me going into a KKK rally and talking about why I think that black people should have equal rights--they would've taken it as an attack on whites.

Totally understandable, but I just get tired of people making statements about pro-life people all being religious, crazy people who want to control women's rights. I don't know a single pro-life person who really believes that a woman should be "controlled" or that a woman shouldn't brace her sexuality (or that birth control is a bad thing). I'm sure there are many of those, so don't get me wrong, but those people who I've been around all see eye to eye on the birt control but feel the way they do about a fetus=human. I am TOTALLY for birth control access and education, and I am TOTALLY for people to come out and say, "Hey, sexuality is not wrong." In other countries where sexuality is more embraced, there are both less unwanted pregnancies AND less abortions--so I don't have a single problem with the birth control issue. My problem is with the whole 90% (are religious nuts who want to control women and keep sex away). Maybe it is true, but 100% of those people I have been around do not fall into that 90%. Maybe I am part of the minority of the minority, though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My tone was no different than the tone of the post I was replying to

I would have to disagree here. Granted, the first post was not the most gently worded, but it was pretty clear to me that he was referring to the people who would put up a statue of a fetus as being sick. Your response was, IMO, more of a rant. That's just the way it came across to me.

I don't know a single pro-life person who really believes that a woman should be "controlled" or that a woman shouldn't brace her sexuality (or that birth control is a bad thing).

I have to admit, I've only known 2 or 3 dozen that fit this description. That's counting the ones I have known personally, not the people that make the headlines with their protests. I know plenty of people opposed to abortion that are not trying to control women, but there are certainly a lot in the group of which you know none.

I am TOTALLY for birth control access and education, and I am TOTALLY for people to come out and say, "Hey, sexuality is not wrong." In other countries where sexuality is more embraced, there are both less unwanted pregnancies AND less abortions--so I don't have a single problem with the birth control issue.

Glad to hear that. We are in complete agreement there.

My problem is with the whole 90% (are religious nuts who want to control women and keep sex away).

I don't think that it is anywhere near 90% fall into the control category. But a lot of them do, and they tend to be the ones that bring the most attention to themselves with their harrasment.

I have some feelings on the matter that you might appreciate, but I'll save those for another day. It's getting late.

David
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
That's counting the ones I have known personally, not the people that make the headlines with their protests. I know plenty of people opposed to abortion that are not trying to control women, but there are certainly a lot in the group of which you know none.

Actually, as someone who wishes I could magically make people see it like I see it (which won't happen...I also wish people would magically see me as a 6'4" hunk...). Anyway, these people do a disservice to the same movement they represent (IMO). For instance, a man was here on campus the other day with a sign of a sliced up fetus and some message about God. I respect his intentions, but that is not going to sway ANYONE (well, maybe, but I don't think so). Instead, pro-life people will just say, "Yep," and pro-choice people will just say, "Religious nut" (or something similar from both sides). I just put my head down. I think we should make religion and pro-life two totally different issues. There are religious pro-choice people and non-religious pro-life people.

Also, I think that people should separate "condoms" or "birth control pills" from abortion. It would lend them a little more credibility, I think. So on that issue, we totally agree. I think that there are pro-lifers out there who are just as extreme as any other group--and I don't think they help the "movement."

I would imagine there are a lot like this (like the first description), but I just never really "met" any (I've seen them and read about them--I would imagine that the "movement" with the giant fetus statue had a lot of those supporters).

I don't think that it is anywhere near 90% fall into the control category. But a lot of them do, and they tend to be the ones that bring the most attention to themselves with their harrasment.

No, I was saying I disagree with another "estimate" in this thread where someone said "90%" of pro-life people want to hold back the rights of women and stop sexual transgressions. I was being sarcastic. I don't think it is even close to that high. And yes, those who get the most attention are probably those who most people label as "religious wackos." The point here is just because something is salient (i.e., those make the front page) that doesn't mean we are all like that...just like not every crack dealer is a black guy (despite what you may see reported in the paper).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For instance, a man was here on campus the other day with a sign of a sliced up fetus and some message about God. I respect his intentions, but that is not going to sway ANYONE (well, maybe, but I don't think so).

I agree (and BTW, I would think that anyone wanting to put up a monument like described is falling into this same category). I think that, in general, in-your-face disruptive protesting does little to further a cause, whether it is pro-life, or some liberal idea. Another example is the kids who blocked a major highway for about 15 minutes to protest the war on Iraq; I sympathize with them, but I don't think you get people to come to your side by making causing them inconvinience.

Also, I think that people should separate "condoms" or "birth control pills" from abortion. It would lend them a little more credibility, I think. So on that issue, we totally agree. I think that there are pro-lifers out there who are just as extreme as any other group--and I don't think they help the "movement."

Got that right. What really irks me is that many of the protesters I've seen in front of PP or other places, when they get their moment of fame, will put down sex education, or the availability of birth control. I just can't understand why they can't see that these things help prevent abortions; the only conclusion I can come to is that they are more concerned with controling women than with really stopping abortion.

I would imagine there are a lot like this (like the first description), but I just never really "met" any (I've seen them and read about them--I would imagine that the "movement" with the giant fetus statue had a lot of those supporters).

I had the distinct "pleasure" of knowing Karen Graham before she became a regional leader for Operation Rescue. She at least is consistent, in refraining from violence, but she still is not a very nice person IMO. But that's okay, the feeling is mutual (and I still have a letter she wrote to prove it). I also have a friend who suffered permanent brain damage, when a pro-life protester took exception to her helping a woman get into Planned Parenthood without being harrassed, and tackled my friend. Having grown up in the south, I managed to meet quite a few people that were rather extreme in their views; of course, if they couldn't contain themselves, they didn't become friends, but I still knew them.

No, I was saying I disagree with another "estimate" in this thread where someone said "90%" of pro-life people want to hold back the rights of women and stop sexual transgressions. I was being sarcastic.

Sorry, I missed the sarcasm. I didn't see the previous reference.

And yes, those who get the most attention are probably those who most people label as "religious wackos." The point here is just because something is salient (i.e., those make the front page) that doesn't mean we are all like that...just like not every crack dealer is a black guy (despite what you may see reported in the paper).

It's like that with everything. "Normal" doesn't make the news; it's only the extremists.

But I still have to agree with the original poster than anyone who would want to put a monument like that at the capitol is a sick person.

David
Print the post Back To Top