The Myth: Pro-Lifers are Filled with Hate
— Posted by Eric (May 11, 2006 at 4:28 pm)
Note: This is the second installment in an occassional series by Eric Scheidler on the myths many people hold about pro-lifers and the pro-life movement.
Does this young woman look to you like she’s filled with hate?
One of the most common claims being made about pro-lifers and the pro-life movement is that we are “filled with hate” or that we are bent on “spreading hate.” We hear this all the time in press statements by the likes of NARAL, NOW and Planned Parenthood. It’s all over the blogosphere.
In a way, this is a diffucult myth to address. For one thing, it’s so far out of phase with reality that it’s hard to know where to begin. When I think of the kindness and generosity of the pro-life activists that it’s my priviledge to stand with out on the street . . .
But why would anyone who’s willing to believe this myth in the first place take my word for it? Never mind that it would be rather out of character for a hate-monger to care what anyone thinks of him.
I suppose the only way to really debunk this one is for those who hold it to spend time with pro-lifers and find out what we’re really like. The best I can do along those lines here in this article is to offer some typical pictures of pro-life activists doing what we do. Aside from that, I’d like to explore some of the psychology behind this myth.
Hateful Abortion Signs?
This myth is raised most often, in my experience, in regards to the kind of grass-roots, direct action that we specialize in at the Pro-Life Action League (the parent organization of Generations for Life)—especially when we bring out the graphic abortion signs. Holding signs of aborted babies out on the street is declared to be “hateful.”
Another hate monger?
But the question one has to ask in response to this claim is, “Who is the target of this alleged hatred?”
We don’t hate the babies. We’re there trying to show what abortion does to them so people will choose not to abort them. We don’t hate the passersby—we’d hardly make the effort to change the attitudes of people we hate, and in any case, how is it “hateful” to say, “Here’s what abortion looks like—you ought to see this.”
You could call it insensitive, inappropriate, even obnoxious to show the mangled victims of abortion out on the street. But “hateful”? Does anyone make a similar claim when activists—or news media—show the victims of war, poverty or natural disaster? Again, they may object to the tactic of using graphic images, but they don’t attribute the use of that tactic to “hatred.”
Hateful Abortion Clinic Witness?
This objection is even less rational when it comes to counseling women against abortion at pregnancy resource centers or outside abortion facilities. Yet this again is called “hateful.”
Think about this a minute. If we really believe—as we do—that abortion is killing a person, would we want to talk our enemies, people we hate, out of abortion? Would we not rather say, with the Psalmist reproaching Bablyon, “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” (Ps 137:9)?
If we believe—as we do—that aboriton is likely to leave a woman feeling wounded, hopeless and even suicidal, and we hate this woman, wouldn’t we rather stand back and let her go through with it and delight in her decades of misery? It doesn’t add up.
But Don’t We Hate Abortionists?
What’s more undestandable is the belief that we hate abortionists and abortion clinic staffers. After all, we are accusing them of abominable crimes against unborn babies and their mothers, so it would be understandable if hated them. But even that accusation breaks down on closer examination.
Joe Scheidler (center) with former abortion providers (from left) Marian Johnston-Loehner, Luhra Tivis, Judith Feltrow and Joan Appleton in 1993.
We have worked hard to convince people involved in the abortion business to quit. Again, not the kind of behavior you would direct towards someone you hate, especially if you believe their transgressions could lead to eternal punishment, as we Christians do. Why not leave them to the justice of a vengeful God?
But we don’t do that. Pro-life activists all over the country have worked tirelessly, for years in some cases, to reach out to abortion workers. And those who have listened and stopped their involvement with abortion very often credit the compassion and patience of individual pro-lifers with bringing about their conversion.
Yes, it’s hard to like people who are directly involved with the killing of innocent unborn babies, but we do not hate them. Like them or not, we do love them, being commanded to do so against our inclinations by Christ Himself, and we want the best for them, which is to repent of their involvment in abortion and seek forgiveness and peace in Christ’s love.
Where Is the “Hatred” Really Coming From?
So if it just doesn’t make sense, nor square with the evidence available to an objective observer, to accuse pro-lifers of hate mongery, where is this accusation coming from?
As the son of a prominent pro-life activist and now a pro-life activist myself, I’ve dealt with more than my share angry opponents, including many who have turned from being angry to being sympathetic after a little honest converstaion. Based on my experience, I argue that what we have here is a case of psychological projection—the defense mechanism whereby one projects one’s own negative feelings onto another, especially when the other is associated with evoking those negative feelings.
Who are the ones spreading hate again?
And nothing evokes negative feelings like the abortion issue. In particular, the sight of an aborted baby picture appearing unexpectedly on the side of the road is bound to conjure up negative feelings in the hearts of most people.
Dark Emotions, Projected
Some will feel sorrowful over the injustice done to unborn babies. That sorrow may inspire appreciation for our efforts to expose this injustice; the passerby might give us a thumbs up or even stop to thank us for being there. But it might also trigger anger at us for the unwelcome reminder of a horror they would rather not think about.
Some will feel guilty about abortion—for having had an abortion, for having pressured a wife or girlfriend into having an abortion, for having done nothing to stop the injustice of abortion. Our presence might inspire healthy regret, even repentence—but it might also cause a passerby to lash out, blaming those feelings on our actions rather than the prickings of his own consciences.
Some will feel mournful over a child or granchild lost to abortion. Sometimes the grieving one values our witness, but other times we become a target of a deep resentment that has no other outlet.
These and other dark emotions are all out there when we show the face of abortion—and there is hatred in the air: hatred of the craven boyfriend or ashamed parent who pressured you into abortion, hatred of the woman who aborted your son or daughter against your wishes, hatred of the feckless clergyman who condoned your choice to abort your child, hatred of the society that allows 300 babies to be aborted every waking hour of the day—even hatred of yourself for what you have done or failed to do for these unborn babies.
All that hatred gets projected onto us. How else to explain those angry men who drive by a little group of retirees praying quietly outside an abortion clinic and shout out curses, make rude gestures, rev their engines and drive off like maniacs? What could be less hateful than praying together in a little intimate group that the abortions going on a few yards away will stop?
Hate Must Be Exposed and Conquered—by Love
So why do we do these things, if they arouse so much anger? Even if we were insensitive to these feelings, why would we want to be the target of so much hatred, and even be accused of being the source of it all?
This is a serious question, one that we revisit often, especially with regards to the public display of abortion pictures. Sometimes, indeed, we will chose not to use graphic signs under particular circumstances. That we must be present at abortion facilities to pray and counsel is an unshakable conviction, but we are constantly working to make our presence a there a more authentic outreach and more effective font of compassion.
In the end, we do not believe that it is best to allow these feelings of sorrow, grief, guilt, shame and anger to remain buried. It cannot be good for our society nor for individual people to avoid confronting the painful emotions surrounding abortion. The results we see confirm this conviction: the lives saved, the wounds healed, the despair conquered, the sould converted.
Pro-lifers are not “filled with hate.” The pro-life movement is not “spreading hate.” The hate is already out there, festering beneath the surfaced, unresolved, malignant. We’re working to expose the sources of hate so that hate can finally be conquered by love.
Doesn’t every child—born and unborn—deserve to be loved?
This is what really inspires our work in the pro-life movement, even if the face of so many lies about us, so much invective and calumny, is just this: love.
We love the mothers who are carrying a burden of guilt. We love the fathers who are consumed by shame. We love those parents and grandparents who are grieving children lost to abortion. We love the abortionists in whose hearts the spark of the Holy Spirit has nearly been extinguished.
We love the society that we know we could create together if only we could overcome the hate at the core of abortion and learn to love the gift that is every unborn child.
This entry is filed under Myths Series. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Square Zero » Blog Archive » Those “Hateful” Pro-Lifers says:
[…] I want to alert readers of Square Zero that I’ve just published an article at Generations for Life addressing the notion that pro-lifers, especially we pro-life activists, are “filled with hate” in all that we do. This is the first installment in a series of articles debunking the myths that people believe about pro-lifers and the pro-life movement. (You can read the introduction to the series here.) Comments welcome here or at Generations for Life. […]
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
tim says:
Good article - it is very tempting for those who disagree with the pro-life stand on the sanctity of human life to fallaciously write-off the propositional truth of their opponents by using an ad hominem attack (classifying pro-lifers as hate filled). I appreciate the witness of pro-lifers, like Generations for Life, who are able to present the stark reality of abortion, understanding that the most hateful thing we could do is to say nothing.
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Lauren says:
Well given the fact that at one of your organization’s protests I was called a tramp and one of my friends a fag, it’s not that far off the mark.
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Lauren says:
“Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock” (Ps 137:9)?
Dashing against the rock? what does this even mean? You mean to tell me you interpret that as a message against abortion.. man… i just dont see it.. sorry
“But it might also trigger anger at us for the unwelcome reminder of a horror they would rather not think about.”
No. The hatred that is directed towards you is because you think you can stand in judgement. It isn’t about the horror, believe me. It is about the fact that you people stand out there holier-than-thou and claim to know what God thinks. You hold signs of Jesus next to your pictures of abortion and claim to know the path to righteousness. Ever heard of a little humility?
An abortion is never an easy choice.. I think you are hate-filled because more than numerous times you have called me a pro-abort. I’m not going to lie that crushes me. That hurts me. But you don’t seem to care. You just throw it around like it means nothing to me. I don’t want to see women become a subjugate class in this country. Women have fought too hard to have their lives controlled by religious zealots.
People resent you because you ignore facts. You ignore the fact that it may be possible for a woman for one to make a decision to have an abortion, not regret it, and it still be a difficult decision. You stand in judgement of her. Really, answer this, who do you think you are to judge? How are you any better than me? I’m no better than you. I do earnestly feel bad for you though. I feel like a lot of people on your side, don’t want to face the realities and injustices in the world so instead of dealing with them, want black and white solutions to grey problems. It wouldn’t matter to you if a 12 year old girl was raped and impregnated, as long as she carried that pregnancy to term. It wouldn’t matter to you that a young girl accidentally get pregnant because her high school wouldn’t educate her about birth control because right-wingers wouldn’t allow her to learn. It wouldn’t matter to you because it’s not what you do. You want everyone to live the way you do and if they dont, they better deal with the consequences you have given them.
What do you think is going to happen when you start forcing women to carry pregnancies to term, eric?
I came on this site with the intention to find middle ground. That was my original intention. I didnt make friends on this site, it’s clear I made enemies and it saddens me. It wasn’t my intention. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve looked at this site and cried my eyes out. I do have sorrow for abortion. I have sorrow that it is even a choice. I have sorrow that I will never raise children in a world where they have control of their bodies without someone or some government assuming that they know better. I have sorrow because my children will not live in a world where these issues are a thing of the past. Until there are preventative solutions and middle ground met, abortion will always be here, and it will always be a tragedy.
We both could go on forever. You calling me a pro-abort. Me calling you an idiot. I’m sure you probably think I’m pro-abortion because that makes you more comfortable. It certainly makes me more comfortable to think you are an idiot. Not that it’s right.
Please do not assume that if you get rid of abortion, you get rid of pain. Aren’t you concerned of the pain that will be caused to a young woman not ready emotionally or financially for a child? Aren’t you concerned of the pain that a woman might have if she is forced to put her child up for adoption? Aren’t you concerned about the pain that might be caused to a woman who has been raped and will be forced to having a living reminder of that trauma? Aren’t you worried about the pain that might be caused to a woman whose plans for life or college might be ruined by having a child? Aren’t you worried about us? Why is it that our pain will suddenly go away by having a child? I could only wish it would be that easy.
“We love the mothers who are carrying a burden of guilt. We love the fathers who are consumed by shame. We love those parents and grandparents who are grieving children lost to abortion. We love the abortionists in whose hearts the spark of the Holy Spirit has nearly been extinguished.”
If I wanted to be very cynical about it, I would disagree with this. You don’t love the mothers… you love the feelings of congratulating yourself for taking the moral high ground. It’s easy to be pro-life. It requires no consideration of the complicated issues at hand.
In the meantime, I’ll try to disconnect myself the next time you call me pro-abortion eric. Because I can tell you one thing. you care so very little about me.
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Lauren says:
For the record, when someone took a picture of me at your protest I smiled…. I got approached by a weird lady about aliens (dont ask me) and I got called a baby-killer, whore, tramp, and like I said my friend a fag. Also, i got chased after I was holding my HonK for choice sign… literally chased around… i think it made the guy upset that people were hanging out of their windows giving me and my girls thumbs ups and hollers from young women of Thank you..
You called 1/4 of women murderers.. Don’t you think that’s going to boil some blood?
1/4 of women will have at least one baortion by the time their 40.. what are you going to do about it? That’s not a rhetorical question.
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
Lauren says:
Again, let me ask again.. What would you do if I were your daughter?
Comment posted May 11th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
Robert says:
Lauren, I’m sorry that the term “pro-abortion” upsets you. However, consider the following and I think you’ll understand why most see the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-abortion” as synonymous:
Pro-Choice. No one ever defends a pro-choice position with respect to bank robbery. The only time this expression is used without reference to what we’re pro-choice about is when the most helpless and innocent human being is at stake. Pro-choice is synonymous with pro-abortion because no one speaks of pro-choice in any other context. Pro-choice is simply a euphemism that causes us to forget the baby.
Language, as the philospher Heidegger said, “is the house of being.” If our language is contorted and deconstructed through euphemisms, redefinitions and other anomolies then, the being housed by language becomes indeterminate, there are no fixed meanings, that is relativism pushed to its pinnacle, nihilism itself.
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes:
Lauren, you missed my point. If we hated women seeking abortion, we would want their babies to be aborted—just as the psalmist wanted the children of the “daughter of Babylon” to be murdered in revenge for what the Israelites had suffered under Babylon.
Psalm 137:9 is the farthest thing (taken literally, anyway) from a “message against abortion.” That you thought I was using it in that way shows either that you’re not a very careful reader in general, or that you’re so biased against pro-lifers that you miss the plain sense of their text. (The latter gets my vote, BTW.)
I’d like to know what protest “by our organization” it was where someone called you names. I happen to run all the protests run by the Pro-Life Action League, and I’m not aware of ever having seen you at one of them. I rarely hear the kind of language you describe from any of our members or volunteers, but when I do, I step in and put a stop to it.
If you object to being called a “pro-abort,” perhaps you could propose another term that accurately describes your position. I’m not going to start using the deliberately vague, euphemistic and almost entirely meaningless phrase “pro-choice.” You favor legalized abortion. You are “pro” legal abortion. “Pro-abortion” and “pro-abort” are just shorthand descriptions of the position you actually hold.
Your claims to have come to this site seeking middle ground really ring hollow, I’m afraid. You have been unapologetically rude and insulting from your very first comments here two months ago, when you called my sister Annie “unhinged” and me a “silly, silly man.” Not exactly irenic language.
No, it looks to me like you came here looking for a fight, and that’s what you’ve gotten, maybe more than you counted on.
And again, it’s hard to believe that you’ve “cried your eyes out” reading this site. Maybe its true, but I’m finding it hard to square the bitter character that you have so often displayed here with the sort of tender soul that would actually cry about a pro-life website or be wounded by the words of people she insists are ignorant, mindless zealots and “assholes.”
Speaking of name calling, I emphatically do not call women who have had abortions “murderers.” Why do you think that I do? When have you ever seen me do so? I never do and never would.
Nearly all of the questions and objections you raise in #3-6 have already been addressed in other threads on this site by myself or others; seems futile to try yet again to explain our position to you. However, you can look for a future installment in the Myths Series in response to the myth that we pro-lifers don’t understand or haven’t considered the tremendous challenges faced by women with untimely pregnancies.
But I will respond to one question, which you’ve brought up a couple of times now: What would I do if you were my daughter?
First, I would pray for you. You can scoff at that if you want, but I do believe in the power of prayer, both psychologically and spiritually.
I have found that it is impossible to harbor animosity towards someone for whom one is praying. I’ve experienced this from both sides, for when I was out of the Church and living a life completely contrary to the life of a Christian, my father prayed for me constantly. This helped him, against his baser instincts, to keep from resenting me for disappointing him; we were able to get along okay despite everything.
What’s more, I know his prayers—and the prayers of all those whom he asked to pray for me over the years—had an influence on me spiritually. It’s largely thanks to others’ prayers that I returned to the Catholic faith in my early thirties after ten years in apostasy.
I would, secondly, try to be available to help you in any way that I could. If you had had an abortion, I would treat you like we treat any woman who has had an abortion: with patience, understanding and compassion.
What I would not do is “disown” you, either for being a pro-abortion activist or for having an abortion. I would not reject you or treat you with disgust or anything like that, even though it would be very painful to think that you had handed over my grandchild to be killed.
The question you’re asking is really much more complicated than you imagine, though. My daughters—I have five of them between the ages of 10 and almost 1—will have grown up seeing first hand what abortion looks like and what it has done to ruin the lives of so many women. They will have been taught from the cradle to cherish chastity and to value their own dignity too much to accept anything less than a total commitment of love before giving themselves sexually to any man.
I’m not saying it’s impossible that one of my daughters could grow up and have an abortion or become a pro-abortion activist, but it’s extremely unlikely, and there would be much more going on with that than just a desire to avoid dealing with an unplanned pregnancy. So the question itself hardly makes sense, though I’ve tried to answer it in the way I think you meant it.
But I don’t think you’ve answered the question someone else (Rosie, I think) put to you: what would you do if your daughter became a devout, orthodox Catholic? What would you do if your daughter became a pro-life activist?
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Lauren says:
No, i still dont understand what that psalm means.. please explain it to me.
I went to the one on April 1st at Planned Parenthood in Orland Park.
“’m not going to start using the deliberately vague, euphemistic and almost entirely meaningless phrase “pro-choice.” You favor legalized abortion. You are “pro” legal abortion. “Pro-abortion” and “pro-abort” are just shorthand descriptions of the position you actually hold.”
Saying that I am pro-abortion signifies that I am pro-abortion. not pro legalization of abortion. If anything, I am pro-legal, or pro-choice. You know exactly what it means to call someone pro-abortion. Do you really think I am in favor of abortion as an institution? Absolutely not. As I’ve said again and again, it sucks that it has to exist and I want to make a world where it no longer has to.
I admit I’ve been mean. But I haven’t tried to take any of your rights away have I? Have I told you you cannot practice your faith? Have I made you do anything you didnt want? No. Nor would I ever. I think it’s amazing you have closely held beliefs. But I don’t like it when you slander me or basically call people close to me murderers. I dont like hwen you assume to know my feelings. And i especially dont like when you assume to know my role in life or what it is I have to do by making my choices for me. If you had control, you wouldn’t let me have an abortion if I desired one would you? If you could stop me with force, or by law, you would. You are essentially raping me and all of the other women out there that would like their rights to their body. I’ve tried to reach middle ground, but too often I’ve come here and been accused of accepting murder. I dont feel like I do that. I feel like I want birth control and abstinence education. You wont even meet me there. You have the right to deny yourself birth control, I know you have that right.. But why do you think you deserve the right to make that decision for others?
I didnt come here looking for a fight.. I came here for therapy. I dont want to believe that you really want to hurt me. I can’t help but see it that way when I see your protests. I wanted you to change my mind. And I’m mad that you have not.
“Maybe its true, but I’m finding it hard to square the bitter character that you have so often displayed here with the sort of tender soul that would actually cry about a pro-life website or be wounded by the words of people she insists are ignorant, mindless zealots and “assholes.””
It’s easier to think of you that way, just as it is easier for you to think of me as a bitch who is pro-abortion. I want to believe that I misunderstand you. i really do.
And to me you do call women who have abortions murderers… You say that it is a life, and that having abortion kills the life.. Isn’t that murder to you?
What if no one is listening to your prayers? What if no one listens to mine? What if we are just talking to the air? Doesn’t that scare you? It scares the hell out of me. It also scares me that people have such extreme faith that they dont believe, but they know. Do you believe or do you know?
Unless your daughters live in a bubble, they wont be able to escape the realities of the world.. Something I too try to change for young women.. While we dont agree on sexuality perse, and that no sex before marriage isnt something I see as necessarily “right”, I do agree that women are exploited heavily today. I will let you know though too I don’t believe that is part of the feminist movement. The real feminist movement agrees with you that women should be cherished. But if you believe that women’s roles are solelyto be mothers, we would disagree with you. Motherhood is a fantastic and important role for women, but not the only one.. I hope that your daughters know that they are capable of being more than a mother and a wife.
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Lauren says:
anyways i’ll write more later my boyfriend is bugging me
Comment posted May 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Lauren says:
“They will have been taught from the cradle to cherish chastity and to value their own dignity too much to accept anything less than a total commitment of love before giving themselves sexually to any man.”
I have a hard time swallowing this a bit.. Giving themselves? In our culture today not only are women exploited as sex objects, it seems that many characterize us incapable of having sexual feelings or sexual urges ourselves. The language giving signifies that a woman is just a mechanism in sex and can’t really enjoy it herself. I believe that women can have amazing sexual pleasure, independent or with a man (or if that’s your thing, a woman). I feel like for too long that men have been the only ones to enjoy sex, and women well they’re just there to “give” themselves to men.
Maybe I’m reading too much into what you wrote, but just a thought.
My mother raised me as an independent thinker. I could’ve ended up either way. Although my mom always incensed a need for social justice in my heart, my dad even further convinced me that I needed to prove him wrong. I’ve always been a bit of a rebel and all my life I’ve paid for it. As a young girl I underwent horrid physical and mental abuse, and my way out was to be a strong woman. I’ve always seen myself as a defender of women, particularly those who have had their bodies violated. I see forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies a violation of their bodies. I base a lot of my thinking on my own experience. Whether or not that makes my judgement clearer or cloudier I dont know.. but this is the lense I view the world in.
I hope that my daughter doesnt view the world the lense I see it in. I hop ethat she has the opportunities and the intelligence to see it another way. I hope that she is hopeful, smart, and questioning. If her questioning leads her to a road that makes her pro-life, so be it. I will not tolerate close-mindedness and she’ll know that. I will never disown my children no matter what happens. I will hope that she will be tolerant and humble. I will raise her to think that everyone is the same and she is control of her body and no one has the right to violate it. I will also teach her abstinence because it is the safe thing to do. She will also get sex education from me too. I want her ideas about sex coming from me and not television.
Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 9:32 am
rosie says:
Sounds like you’ll make a great mom! I’m being serious by the way. I think if we were not talking politically or religiously we would have quite a bit in common. who knows..
Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 11:06 am
Lauren says:
Well thanks rosie.. I’m glad to see that we see eye to eye on something. I think we both see what is happening to young girls as a result of popular culture. We must make sure they know that they are more than that. It saddens me. When I see 12 year old girls wearing Playboy bunny t-shirts and look at my space profiles of young girls who show loneliness and sadness as well as a dose of disconnection from what it means to be a girl, I wonder how much longer parents can put up with the filth and exploitation with women on television.
I think Pink hit it on the head with her song Stupid Girls. Not really my kind of music, but it struck a chord with me.
Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “Giving themselves? In our culture today not only are women exploited as sex objects, it seems that many characterize us incapable of having sexual feelings or sexual urges ourselves. The language giving signifies that a woman is just a mechanism in sex and can’t really enjoy it herself.”
Believe it or not, Lauren, there’s a lot that we agree on here, I think. First of all, when I save “give herself” I mean give herself freely. This is entirely the opposite of exploiting her, seizing her body, so to speak, to use her as an object.
The language of “giving” first and foremost bespeaks a woman’s dignity—she is capable of freely giving herself away, and moreover any attempt to exploit her sexually (or in any other way) is a violation of her dignity. It is up to her to choose to make a gift of herself.
The language of giving also bespeaks that what she has to offer is a gift. That is to say, it is something worthy of being received with gratitude. When I speak of giving I’m speaking of generosity on the part of the woman and gratitude on the part of the man. The bodily gift of a woman to a man is a gift of inestimable value, and gift which he should hold in awe and cherish with his entire being.
The launguage of giving also bespeaks reciprocity. Not only does the woman give herself to the man, who receives this gift graciously, but the man gives himself to the woman, a gift she in turn receives with gratitude. So there are really four components to this, all wrapped up in the idea of “gift”:
That’s what I’ve got in mind when I talk about teaching my five daughters to accept nothing less than a commitment of unconditional love before giving themselves to a man. I’m teaching a corresponding lesson to my two sons as well.
Moreover, to the fullest possible extent this mutual giving should be reflected in the actual experience of sexual union, including the pleasureable dimension of the sexual embrace. Here’s a statement that pretty well summarized my view:
You know who wrote that? That was written by Bishop Karol Wojtyla in 1960—the man who would become Pope John Paul II. Here’s another quote from his book, Love and Responsibility:
That’s right—a bishop, later to become Pope—is calling on couples to achieve simultaneous orgasm. And he places a particular duty on the shoulders of men to discover how to ensure that their wives experience sexual pleasure. He recognizes precisely what you are saying: that women have historically been treated as objects of sexual pleasure by men, not as full partners in an act of mutual giving and receiving.
This is part of what I had in mind when I spoke of any of my daughters “giving herself.” The other part—and this is where we disagree—is that in my understanding, the only possibly context for this kind of total, mutual exchange of persons in what scripture so aptly calls a “one flesh union” is the bond of marriage.
Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
rosie says:
Lauren,
yes, children who are exploited, both boys and girls do seem disconnected, but from people as a whole I think also. Any kind of exploitation of a child makes my blood boil. However, I think that’s one of the reasons i’m pro-life, because there are 2 people involved, 2 bodies. Do you think it’s likely that if one is exploited that they are more likely to exploit someone else? I’m thinking that’s the problem, I could be wrong.
Comment posted May 13th, 2006 at 6:20 pm
Eric says:
Lauren says: “No, i still dont understand what that psalm means.. please explain it to me.”
Psalm 137 is a lamentation about the Babylonian Captivity, when the Hebrew Kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonian Empire and much of the Jewish population dragged off into captivity in Babylon.
The Pslamist is overcome with fury towards the Babylonians, swearing never to forget Zion (Jerusalem) and promising the Babylonians that they will have to pay one day for what they had done to the Jews (which they did, when they were in turn conquered by the Persians).
In lashing out at the Babylonians, represented by the figure of the “Daughter of Babylon,” the Psalmist declares in verse 9: “Happy shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock.”
This is a disturbing passage for a pro-life Christian to read, and indeed it has been cited by groups that claim support for legalized abortion is capatible with scripture.
However, we must remember that we are reading the words of a people dispossessed and captive; the vengeful words of this Psalm needn’t be construed as any kind of endorsement of infanticide, but may rather be merely expressive of the degree of hatred the Jews felt towards the Babylonians.
Moreover, it took the Jews centuries to begin to grasp that their relationship with God—and the laws governing their treatment of one another—was something which God wished to establish with all nations. This lesson, in fact, was a central one for Jesus, who consorted with Samaritans and Romans. For the Jews, to kill the children of one’s enemies had seemed just; but Christ told them to love their enemies.
This particular Psalm is especially important to Eastern Christians (Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic), who sing it during the season of Great Lent. This is why the Psalm is familiar to me, and why it came readily to mind when reflecting on the attitude that someone would have towards the children of his enemy—hatred inspires a desire to destroy those children, not save them.
You can hear one chant version of Psalm 137 here.
The Babylonian Captivity becomes a metaphor for the captivity of the human race and of each individual human soul before the saving work of Christ. (Seen analogically, verse 9 is not about literally killing children, but about metaphorically destroying even the smallest beginnings of sin or temptation that might be growing in one’s heart.)
Comment posted May 14th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Eric says:
Lauren says: “I see forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies a violation of their bodies.”
Lauren, I can understand how you would think that “forcing” a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy would be a kind of violation. But I’d like to back up and look at that word “force,” because it seems to me that the real violation of a woman’s body is something else.
Looked at purely in terms of the physical act directed at her body, abortion is a violation. It is the act of abortion, by surgical or chemical means, that forces a woman’s body to abort a pregnancy. Whatever her attitude towards being pregnant might be, her body is so consumingly directed towards carrying that pregnancy to term that extraordinary means have to be employed to stop her body from doing so.
You say that we would “force” a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy, but it’s actually her own body which is forcing this on her. It’s hard to see how it’s a violation of her body to prevent the use of force to cause her body to abort.
If a woman were really mistress of her own body in the way the “pro-choice” rhetoric declares, she would simply will herself not to be pregnant; better yet, will herself not to become pregnant in the first place. But nobody really has “control” over his or her body in any absolute sense.
The fact is that there is a disconnect between what one wills or desires in regards to his or her body, and that body itself. The difficulty is in dealing with that disconnect.
But what’s interesting to me is that you, Lauren, do not actually seem to hold the view that one has an absolute right over one’s body. Your views on the Duke lacrosse/stripper scandal shows this. Though you’re not willing to make stripping illegal, you are willing to say that stripping is an exploitation of women.
You say this as if it is a fact, something inherently true about a woman’s body that for it to be used in this way even by her own choice is wrong (even if, again, it should be allowed by law).
In other words, by the logic of your own position, you admit that it’s possible for a woman to be wrong about the meaning of her body, about what it means for the integrity and dignity of her body to be respected.
We’re saying much the same thing about abortion—that it is a violation of the dignity and integrity of a woman’s body.
Comment posted May 15th, 2006 at 10:51 am
Margie says:
Next year, come out to San Francisco, CA for the third annual March for Life walk. Want to see hate? The violent proaborts who curse at us are not exactly glad for our presence. The aging grannies for choice are a hate-filled, bitter bunch of women. The prochoice crowd does everything in their power to mock, belittle, denigrate and despise the presence of peaceful, prolifers who witness to their city. Our priests and religious are blasphemed. Our youth are spit upon. The prochoicers of San Francisco, CA do everything they can to make sure we get the message that they hate us, they want us to leave, they despise our message, and they would like to disrupt our first amendment free speech rights.
On the prolife side, we do not respond to their hatred and threats. We pray. We turn the other cheek. We respond to their hatred with love in our hearts. What are we filled with? Most of us are Catholics who have just received the Eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ prior to attending the march. We are filled with Jesus and we pray that the prochoicers will one day choose Christ as well.
Comment posted May 15th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Lauren says:
“Next year, come out to San Francisco, CA for the third annual March for Life walk. Want to see hate? The violent proaborts who curse at us are not exactly glad for our presence. The aging grannies for choice are a hate-filled, bitter bunch of women. The prochoice crowd does everything in their power to mock, belittle, denigrate and despise the presence of peaceful, prolifers who witness to their city. Our priests and religious are blasphemed. Our youth are spit upon.:
I dont sense any bitterness or equal hatred here at all..
You aren’t filled with Jesus, you are filled with patting yourself on the back. In other words, arrogance.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:48 am
Lauren says:
Hey Margie, I’m sorry that you are so full of yourself. I really am. I can’t imagine what it must be like to never doubt yourself. Let me know the next time you and Jesus have a conference call so i can sit in. I’m sorry that I’m not smart or blessed enough to be as lucky as you are. Coming from a girl who was called a tramp at a rally, this idea that anti-choice marchers have no venom is ridiculous. You dont hear me saying pro-choice doesnt have any venom either. Both sides are equally ridiculous in their own right.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Lauren says:
“But what’s interesting to me is that you, Lauren, do not actually seem to hold the view that one has an absolute right over one’s body”
No I do see that. A woman does have an absolute right over her body. She has a right to it in terms of stripping as well. I dont think it is right and I think it is a result of culture and probably a troubled past. I choose not to patronize those establishments and do my best to help other young women who are facing those choices. But if you think i’m about to outlaw it you are definitely wrong.
As a gambling addict, my knee jerk solution was to say that online gambling should be illegal. No. My priest even warned me against this attitude. You have to change the hearts and minds of the people to hear what you’re saying. You have to reform a system by changing people’s minds. This is truly a humble thing to do. The same thing goes with abortion. If you outlaw it, you are saying that people who make the decision to have an abortion aren’t capable of such a decision. They are capable and should be capable. I would argue we need to create an atmosphere where abortion is a thing of the past. We aren’t going to get rid of prostitution or stripping by making it illegal. if we create paths for women to get an education and prevent childhood abuse, we wouldn’t have these institutions. If we had fair and equitable sex education programs, we would have less unintended pregnancy and hence less abortion.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Lauren says:
If your groups weren’t so vehemently about ending the right to choose, or overturning Roe, I would probably join a pro-life movement in terms of helping women find other options and changing the scenario. But by overturning roe all you’re doing is telling women they are not capable of making their own decisions about their bodies and instead you’ll decide for them based on YOUR beliefs.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Lauren says:
“If a woman were really mistress of her own body in the way the “pro-choice” rhetoric declares, she would simply will herself not to be pregnant; better yet, will herself not to become pregnant in the first place.”
I agree with you that it should just be that a person should will herself not to become pregnant in the first place. We do not live in this world and in no point in history have we ever. Nor will we ever. We need to deal with reality and not moral absolutes if we want to get something done. I will be the first to admit abortion is a rough thing for any woman to choose, but how can we alleviate the choice by just making a choice illegal? All you are saying is you have no choice if it is illegal. You get pregnant, toI’o bad. I dont really like to talk in terms of rape and incest because i think a lot of people who believe in choice for accidental pregnancy want to use this as their poster child, but i think it’s important to touch upon it.
You really honestly vehemently believe that if, god forbid, one of your daughters was raped you would do everything you could to make her carry that pregnancy? Would you deny her emergency contraception? Please at least tell me you struggle with these questions. I’m not trying to pull a “gotcha”, i’m just trying to see if you struggle too. I do.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Lauren says:
“It’s hard to see how it’s a violation of her body to prevent the use of force to cause her body to abort.”
Many women describe a feeling of relief after having an abortion. I cannot imagine the anxiety a woman would experience if she were not allowed to terminate a pregnancy and really desired to. I dont understand why you believe it is your right to prevent a woman for exercising what she wants to do with her body. Btw, abortion really isnt an extraordinary measure in terms of terminating a pregnancy. I dont mean for that to be a normative statement, merely a scientific reflection.
I really don’t mean to be harsh this way, but I really dont think a man can understand what it would be like to be forced to carry a pregnancy. I dont think you can possibly empathize. If I were to get pregnant, but probably wouldnt happen given that I am very cautious, I would be scared, depressed, and probably desparate. I know that I would immediately want to terminate my pregnancy.. Whether I would actually do it or not is another question given that I’m sure my mind may change once faced with it in real life and not in some silly hypothetical.. Here’s the truth.. one in four women are having an abortion by the time they’re 40. This is a tragedy. How can we help them? I dont think forbidding them to have an abortion si going to help them.. I think that is going to make women more desparate and more subjugated.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/25/112036/598
That’s an interesting post on daily kos.
My question to us is do you want roe overturned as a moral/political victory or as a pragmatic victory to end abortion?
Because the way I see it now.. youc an’t have that pragmatic victory
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:24 am
mary kay hastings says:
Dearest Lauren,
Our society is filled with examples of one group of people “thinking” for another group. There is a whole slew of people out there that think drug use is great. But another group has stepped in and said that is must be made illegal, to save the first group from themselves.
We fought to make slavery illegal (and won), when one group tried to claim that black people were not really human beings.
We fought a world war to stop a man from expterminating another group of people based on their religious beliefs. This man believed he was right, and his “rights” had to be taken away by another group. Because in the end, there IS a MORAL right and a MORAL wrong. When one group can’t see that, then another group often has to step in until the first group comes to their senses.
We don’t allow pedophilia in this country because we know that it is wrong, even though another group of people believe that it is perfectly all right. But there are two parties involved in this act and one of them is a child. So a law had to be made to protect the weaker party.
What I’m saying is this: Throughout history, society has made laws to protect people from themselves and one another.
If we didn’t step in, then slavery, pedophilia, child abuse, drug use and a multitude of other suspicious behavior would be allowed today. Not stepping in, and believing that all behavior is acceptable, is called moral relativism. And society cannot survive in that climate.
As for Homosexuals? I personally do not believe that homosexuality falls in the same category as the above transgressions, simply because both parties are consenting and both parties are adults. I do believe that it is morally wrong and I believe that there will be a price to pay, but I will not be the one to exact it. Abortion, pedophilia, the holocaust, slavery…all of these however, injure an innocent party and that is why we feel it is right to step in.
We all at one time or another, attempt to impose our beliefs on others. It’s called law. You do it yourself when you try to impose abortion rights on those of us who feel abortion is wrong.
You say that this is a fight that we are sure to lose but I say that as long as abortion is legal, there are no winners. Only losers. When a problem as large as “unwanted pregnancy”,( and I use the term loosely because I believe that every pregnacy is wanted by someone) is at stake, then you must ask yourself if killing the baby is the right solution. Perhaps stepping back and solving the problem before it starts, or taking responsiblity for the situation once it reaches the crisis point (pregnancy) would serve everyone better. Perhaps if the 40 million aborted children had had a vote, roe vs wade would already be overturned.
You say that you came looking for the truth, and I say that before you can see the truth you need to go to confession, pray very hard for eyes to see and read all of our posts again…
I know you were hurt by comments made at a prolife rally, but one such comment cannot excuse the many, many unkind names that you have called all of us. As far as I can see, even though some the names you have thrown out could be percieved to be hurtful, not one person has retallliated in kind. Think about that. We cannot be responsible for every prolife activist, but it seems to me that meeting one unkind person in our group should not mean that you should stop listening to the rest of us. If that were the case, then your behavior would lead US to believe that ALL pro aborts were mean spirited. Thankfully, we know that that is not true. You need to represent your side better if you hope to be taken seriously.
Lumping us all together would like be saying that all police are bad because one officer was corrupt, or all teachers are jerks, because you had one bad one once. The Catholic Church knows this better than anyone. ALL priests are not bad, simply because some are…
Pray Lauren, Pray, Pray, Pray and then pray some more…
God Keep You Close,
Mary Kay
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Eric says:
Lauren says to Margie: “I dont sense any bitterness or equal hatred here at all.”
Neither do I—just sorrow at how cruel people can be and and disappointment that people perceive the “hate” situation precisely backwards.
Before you go dismissing Margie’s comments, you might want to take a look at what they were up against in San Francisco.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “We aren’t going to get rid of prostitution or stripping by making it illegal.”
The same could be said of rape or child prostitution. Some things are so wrong, so harmful to others and so corrosive of the public good that we make them illegal, even though we know that will not stop the abuse entirely.
Lauren writes: “If we had fair and equitable sex education programs, we would have less unintended pregnancy and hence less abortion.”
This is actually something we agree on, at least at face value. However, we have radically different ideas of what constitutes a “fair and equitable sex ed program.”
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “But by overturning roe all you’re doing is telling women they are not capable of making their own decisions about their bodies and instead you’ll decide for them based on YOUR beliefs.”
Ironically, the Roe v. Wade decision was the Supreme Court telling the people of the various states that they are not capable of making their own decisions on abortion—the Supreme Court decided for everybody that abortion would be legal from the moment of conception to the moment of birth.
Let’s be clear about one thing: if Roe were overturned (not by “us” but by the Supreme Court), the legal status of abortion would return to the fifty states where it should have been all along (like the other issues you mention: prostitution, strip clubs and gambling).
I don’t want to make the decisions “for” a woman whether or not to have an abortion. Again, I don’t believe anyone can legitimately decide to kill a child in the womb. Just as noone can legitimately decide to enslave or rape another person.
The problem, Lauren, is that there are two bodies. This is not just a question of “a woman’s body” and her abstract “right to choose”, but also a question of another body, the body of her unborn baby.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “My question to us is do you want roe overturned as a moral/political victory or as a pragmatic victory to end abortion?”
Short answer, both.
But again, if Roe is overturned, this won’t magically end legal abortion in the U.S. Actually, I’m surprised that you as a “pro-choice” activist don’t realize this. What would happen is that states would once again be free to regulate abortion.
Some states would maintain the Roe/Doe status quo of abortion on demand from conception until the moment of birth. Others would go even farther and actually fund many or even most abortions. Other states would enact varying restrictions (some of which you have endorsed on these comments boards), and a few states would outlaw abortion entirely.
So it is not a question of American women waking up one morning and discovering their “right” to an abortion has been taken from them. Even to overturn Roe will take a tremendous effort to change people’s attitudes towards abortion and Roe itself—the “changing hearts and minds” concept you mentioned. Everyone agrees that we’re at least one very contentious Supreme Court nomination away from even a remote possibility of overturning Roe.
But let’s say that we see Roe overturned and some state or another totally bans abortion (as South Dakota is trying to do right now). First of all, the kind of political will it takes to enact a law like that can only emerge from a strongly pro-life (or anti-abortion, if you prefer) population. That’s going to mean a whole ethos in that state that will influence everything from the assistance made available to women with untimely pregnancy to the kinds of sexual education offered there.
It will also influence people’s behavior. The ready availablility of abortion (and birth control) profoundly influences the way people behave. Those one in four women you cite (I’ve actually heard two in five) would hardly have done nothing different were abortion not an easy option. Most of them would have acted differently, made very different sexual choices, if abortion were not available.
This is true not only because of how such a situation would change the consquences of risky sexual behavior, but because the kind of environment in which a total ban on abortion could even be passed would already be influencing people’s attitudes towards sex. A citizenry that puts a premium on sexual license is not likely to enact an abortion ban!
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:08 am
Lauren says:
Sigh.
“There is a whole slew of people out there that think drug use is great.”
I dont think anyone is like yay drug use! Alcohol after all is more dangerous than marijuana. Yet marijuana is illegal. It makes no sense. Society comes up with laws based not on protecting people from themselves (and nor should they), but for protecting society and social norms. At one time it was the law that women could not vote. I’m afraid the measures the pro-life movement takes wants to take women’s rights away. I do earnestly believe in my heart that many pro-lifers are mysoginistic or at the very least self-loathing. We women need to represent ourselves better. Our foremothers fought too hard to subjugate ourselves down to being “only mothers.” We are capable of more than just being a vessel for a baby.
“We fought to make slavery illegal (and won), when one group tried to claim that black people were not really human beings.”
Wait a minute. WE didnt do anything for slavery. Our ancestors worked against slavery. Not me. Not you. Don’t say we fought against slavery because you and I had nothing to do with it.
“Because in the end, there IS a MORAL right and a MORAL wrong.”
I understand why it is easier to look at the world in black and white. You don’t have to grapple with complex issues. You don’t ever have to say maybe or really struggle with anything. Abortion=wrong. Unwanted pregnancy=really wanted by somebody. I think a lot of pro-life people mean well, but really are just too weak to see that there are no moral absolutes. Have you ever read Les Miserables or seen Les Miserables? You struggle with these questions a lot in this novel/play.
Pro-life people take the woman completely and entirely out of the picture when they demand that even a pregnancy caused by rape must be carried to term. Is that really being compassionate or understanding? Is that really what you think is right?
“We don’t allow pedophilia in this country because we know that it is wrong, even though another group of people believe that it is perfectly all right.”
Are you really equating pedophilia with the right to an abortion? You cant really be serious. Are you saying that women who choose to have abortions might as well be pedophiles? The only people who believe pedophilia is alright is the pedophiles. Come on you really can’t be serious on this one. Please tell me you aren’t.
“You say that this is a fight that we are sure to lose but I say that as long as abortion is legal, there are no winners. ”
Are there winners when abortion is illegal? Is the woman who is compelled to rid herself of her pregnancy by taking poison a winner? Is the child with cigarette burns on his arm a winner?
“When a problem as large as “unwanted pregnancy”,( and I use the term loosely because I believe that every pregnacy is wanted by someone”
You are so very, very wrong. Alright, prove your statement. Tell me why there are orphanages, why children are abused every single day, and why your friend Eric has over 5 children of his own and hasn’t seem to have adopted any of those unwanted children. Sorry eric, I know this is a low blow, but seriously. It seems like you’d want to help.
“I do believe that it is morally wrong and I believe that there will be a price to pay, ”
OK, well I’m glad you said believe rather than said know. Because you are in no place to judge other people.
“Perhaps if the 40 million aborted children had had a vote, roe vs wade would already be overturned.”
Now that would be a sight wouldn’t it? Yikes. Please if you want to be taken seriously, don’t make statements like this.
“You say that you came looking for the truth, and I say that before you can see the truth you need to go to confession, pray very hard for eyes to see and read all of our posts again…”
Wait a second, are you telling me the reason I dont seem to get this abortion issue is because I’m not as holy as you? Wow, that seems to be a lot of religious arrogance emitted from you. You seem to think that 1. I dont pray and 2. I am so out of touch with morals that I couldn’t possibly see what is going on here. God, you are so wrong. I was raised Catholic but because of the Church’s seeming intolerance of women and homosexuals I may leave the church. The church I went to when I grew up was the snottiest church ever. The people acted holier than thou much like many people on this site. Yet, some of them were the most racist, bigoted people I have ever met. My disconnection with the church began at about 5th grade when I started to see the hypocrisy of many people I attended with. Thankfully, I met a priest two years ago who changed my mind and made me see not everyone is like that. He urged humility and tolerance to me and made me see that not all leadership in the Catholic church is opposed to ideas like female priests or always votes Republican. To think that your interpretation of Catholicism or of faith in general is the only true and righteous path to salvation is extremely disturbing. Who, after all, do you think you are? You are neither humble nor gracious. To say to me, ah just pray you will see it my way, is one of the most arrogant things I have ever, ever heard. Who are you? God? You people have done more to alienate me from the church than bring me closer to it. Isn’t your goal to bring everyone to it? Or no? Am I seeing this wrong? Everytime I feel close to God in the Catholic church through prayer or reflection because I do in my heart believe what I am doing is right, you people push me away from it. You tell me that it is your God, and not mine. That is not fair.
This has forced me in one of three directions. One. Agnosticism. I dont think i can ever really know what the meaning of life is, but I can live by moral principles and raise my children the same way, and hope that what they’re doing is right. my boyfriend and I have talked about if we ever do get married and decide to raise a family whether or not we’ll go to church. part of me out of instinct feels that we should. After all, I come from a very Catholic family. My grandfather, a former seminarian and my grandmother a former cloistered nun, as well as many other active family members. Yet, I’d rather teach my children real lessons. Every sunday I’d like to take them on a charitable mission. You know, going to a women’s shelter or cleaning the environment. Anything that will make them humble or appreciative of their situation.
http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post/laurenpatrizi/BGR
Sorry I know it must be running off the page. This this is the first article I ever wrote at Campus Progress. Please read it.
2. I have thought about becoming Unitarian Universalist, with a Christian bent. This religion seems to correspond with many of my deeply held beliefs. It performs ceremonies for gay couples, loves sience like me and is incredibly tolerant and welcoming to all people of race, background, economics etc. I’ve been to a few services, and I must say I enjoyed the time I spent there. Check out uua.org for more information
3. Stay in the Catholic church. This is certainly an option. I may not agree with everything the church “officially” says. But I’ve found that many, many Catholics agree with me as weel. After all Catholicism has changed greatly over the years and really the people who form it are the parishoners. catholicsforchoice.org as well as http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/
and crs.org
“I know you were hurt by comments made at a prolife rally, but one such comment cannot excuse the many, many unkind names that you have called all of us.”
You’re right. However, you are trying to steal something from me I hold close. I am merely defending myself.
“, then your behavior would lead US to believe that ALL pro aborts were mean spirited. ”
Don’t you believe that anyways? You just characterized a rally in San Francisco… i sense a straw man…
Btw, to assume that I am like woo hoo abortion all the time no questions asked is wrong. I always have to state that to make sure no one is misrepresenting me.
Funny how you talk about cops and teachers. Given that both parents of mine are each.
“The Catholic Church knows this better than anyone. ALL priests are not bad, simply because some are…”
If you are willing to see this moral greyness why not others?
Eric, you really believe no one has ever been unfair to me on this site. Give me some credit, most probably don’t even tell you what they’re thinking. At least I do. Give me some credit, please.
“The same could be said of rape or child prostitution. Some things are so wrong, so harmful to others and so corrosive of the public good that we make them illegal, even though we know that will not stop the abuse entirely.”
So are you advocating we make stripping illegal?
As a person who has struggled with childhood abuse, real childhood abuse, I take REAL exception that you are comparing that with abortion. It is offensive to me. I’m not telling you to stop, but I’m telling you I disagree with you very much.
“Let’s be clear about one thing: if Roe were overturned (not by “us” but by the Supreme Court), the legal status of abortion would return to the fifty states where it should have been all along (like the other issues you mention: prostitution, strip clubs and gambling).”
I saw a bumper sticker once i really liked. “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” Why should you be able to decide the rights of my body for me? What gives you a right over me? Can I say something in terms of pragmatics without you claiming you have victory over me.. You must give me clearance for this before I discuss it.
A woman must have control of her body in order to have control over her destiny and to be free. If she does not have that, she has nothing.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Lauren says:
“Actually, I’m surprised that you as a “pro-choice” activist don’t realize this. What would happen is that states would once again be free to regulate abortion.”"
Of course I realize this. I have taken a constitutional law class at Georgetown and at Loyola.
But what are you going to do when Illinois doesn’t agree with you, which it wont…
So specifically, how far do yo uwant to go to curtail my rights? How much do you get ecstatic at taken my right to choose away? What measures in particular do you want to take away? What about birth control?
“That’s going to mean a whole ethos in that state that will influence everything from the assistance made available to women with untimely pregnancy to the kinds of sexual education offered there.”
The whole? No try a majority. If other people on this site want to bring up slavery so will I. A majority of people saw slavery as right and because they made up that majority that was what in place. You have a group of people who are controlling the freedoms of others. How’s this let’s say tomorrow a group of people decide religion is really bad for society (btw, that argument could be made) and so they gather together and forbid church-going. What are you going to do? A majority has decided.
“Most of them would have acted differently, made very different sexual choices, if abortion were not available.”
I disagree and this one we cannot resolve because you talking about the inherent nature of human beings. if you don’t think sex is the human condition then I’m sorry, I think you’re wrong.
And let’s say for instance for the sake of argument, you are wrong… What then?
To say that tyrrany never happens by a small group is ignoring history. Look at iran for crying out loud. Those women had their rights taken away by an extreme religious faction and in all honesty i feel like the same thing is happening within our very country.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Lauren says:
dag nammit someone give my comment moderation lol
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 11:52 am
John says:
“dag nammit someone give my comment moderation lol”
Lauren,
I just did.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Lauren says:
thanks:)
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “You really honestly vehemently believe that if, god forbid, one of your daughters was raped you would do everything you could to make her carry that pregnancy? Would you deny her emergency contraception?”
First, I don’t think it would be a question of me “making” my daughter carry a pregnancy resulting from rape. You’re biasing the hypothetical situation just by using that language.
I’m close to my daughters now, and I’m determined to stay close to them as they get older. So it would not be a matter of me imposing an abstract moralism on one of them, but of her coming to me and my wife for help. Moreover, my daughters are very pro-life (Liza was even interviewed by NPR at a protest in New York last year). I don’t think anyone would be talking abortion in a crisis like this.
As for emergency contraception, I have no problem with that in the case of rape provided that there is no chance that conception has already occurred. If it has, then we have to take thought not only for my daughter but my grandchild as well.
As it happens, I know a man, a pro-life activist, whose daughter was raped and became pregnant. She had a little girl and gave her up for adoption to a couple involved in pro-life sidewalk counseling.
Far from being the proverbial “constant reminder of her rape” (as if she would ever forget such a horrific experience) carrying this baby to term was for her a sign that tremendous good can come from evil.
Finally, I do not believe the conventional wisdom that carrying a child conceived by rape is psychologically more difficult for a woman than aborting that child. Abortion only compounds the woman’s suffering, and I wouldn’t want that for my daughter. (For more on that, see here.)
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
Eric says:
Lauren writes: “So specifically, how far do yo u want to go to curtail my rights? How much do you get ecstatic at taken my right to choose away? What measures in particular do you want to take away? What about birth control?
If you come out to the Art Institute tomorrow, you’ll see precisely what we want to do. If you go out to any of the abortion facilities in the Chicago area this weekend, you’ll see precisely what we want to do. If you go to the latest issue of our newspaper, you can see precisely what we have been doing all along.
Our tactics wouldn’t change in a post-Roe abortion state. We’d keep working to educate the public about the brutality of abortion, encourage citizens to vote pro-life, offer help to women with untimely pregnancies and urge abortion workers to get out of the business.
I’m not aware of any proposals to outlaw birth control. I’ve never heard of any such thing. Aside from the calculated alarmism of the “pro-choice” fundraising machine, I don’t think anybody at all is even talking about this.
However, I think it’s high time our society step back and reflect on the devastating impact contraception has had on our families, our relationships and our culture.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
Lauren says:
Alarmism?!? Are you kidding me?! With pharmacists now imposing their personal beliefs on young women getting birth control pills or emergency contraception how cna this be alarmism. Roe is set upon the precedent with the right to privacy. You take that away, you take away Griswold as well.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Lauren says:
“However, I think it’s high time our society step back and reflect on the devastating impact contraception has had on our families, our relationships and our culture.”
Aside from your belief that contraception causes abortion (my eyes are crossing), what exactly has contraception done?
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
Lauren says:
Unfortunately I wont be able to make it tomorrow… My boyfriend has to weld a thingamabobber to my car. I think that’s it’s technical name.
probably better for me anyways. My mom says I get wound too tight everytime I come back from one of those things. I can never stop crying after seeing one of them.
Your rallies hurt me.. and they hurt many women. I hope lots of girls go out there tomorrow to defend themselves. I’m sure they will. I know you don’t want to hear this, but I dont cry because I’m thinking oh abortion is so sad. I feel like I’m looking at a bunch of blind religious wingnuts who want to take my rights away. That makes me cry. It makes me cry that there are no solutions because no one can agree. I let you have abstinence education if I can have birth control education. You won’t let me have it. There is no compromise from you. Should I give up?
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
Lauren says:
btw you spelled aside wrong in your main post, might want to fix it lol.
if I do come, do you know what I look like?
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Pansy Moss says:
Good article. Growing up, I was the only pro-life girl in a group of very pro-choice friends. I spent my life explaining how “even though I am pro-life I am normal”. I have always been active in pro-life activities, and I have known some awesome, generous people, and some very odd almost cultish people. Pretty much like a cross section of any group of people you meet, some good, some bad, but the for the largest part, mostly very human. I decided that I don’t need to apologise for being pro-life. I don’t need to apologise for the actions of the very weird, sick, or extreme ones (like the violent ones) anymore than anyone else because they do not reflect or speak for me. I don’t need to apologise or explain not believing in infanticide. Should the abolitionists have apologised for not believing in slavery? The pro-choice movement is going is going to formulate myths to justify murder every chance they get and will always paint us as “extremists”, “judgemental” (oh, no, not ‘judgmental’) or whatever meets their fancy to soothe their consciences and advance their agenda. They can think what they want, they’re still wrong. That is not to say I don’t understand how hard it is to be faced with a difficult unplanned pregnancy, or I don’t sympathise, but murder is never an answer.
With pharmacists now imposing their personal beliefs on young women getting birth control pills or emergency contraception how cna this be alarmism.
Forcing a pharmacist to prescribe birth control or abortifacient medication is imposing your beliefs on the pharmacist. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork simply because you believe you can, or a Hindu to eat beef? A pro-life pharmacist isn’t saying “you can’t use birth control”, but simply “I will not be a part in your decision to use birth control because it goes against everything I believe in.”
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Eric says:
“Tell me why . . . your friend Eric has over 5 children of his own and hasn’t seem to have adopted any of those unwanted children. Sorry Eric, I know this is a low blow, but seriously.”
It’s not a low blow, Lauren, it’s just silly. How many Iraqi refugees have you taken in? None? Does that invalidate your advocacy against the occupation of Iraq?
In reality, there are far fewer babies available for adoption than couples willing to take them in. And it’s extremely expensive to go through the adoption process—upwards of $10,000.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
Lauren says:
“Forcing a pharmacist to prescribe birth control or abortifacient medication is imposing your beliefs on the pharmacist. Would you force a Muslim to eat pork simply because you believe you can, or a Hindu to eat beef? A pro-life pharmacist isn’t saying “you can’t use birth control”, but simply “I will not be a part in your decision to use birth control because it goes against everything I believe in.””
A muslim wouldn’t work in a meat market. I’m sorry that this “pro-life” pharmacist has beliefs that believes my prescription is wrong. What happens in terms of prescription for me, it is between me and my DOCTOR. As you know, pharmacists are NOT doctors and nor have any right to tell me what I can’t have. They are in the business of dispensing my prescription. It’s none of their GOD DAMN business. If they don’t like it, find another job. Yes it is that simple and no there is NO excuse for this sort of behavior.
If you’re so uncomfortable with “crazy” characterizations of the pro-life movement why do you insist on characterizing the pro-choice movement in a similar fashion? Do I seem crazy to you/? Do I and your supposed friends really want world domination through abortion and love to commit murder plots? Dont dish it out if you can’t take it either.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Lauren says:
You know and I keep hearing this BULLSHIT about “abortifacient.” Tell me again how taking birth control pills are abortion.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Lauren says:
PLEASE RESPOND AND REPLY:
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/105/107875.htm
And actually Eric, I do speak truth to power. I give to the causes I believe in. Not to mention, I’m in college and usually what disposable income I have goes to those causes. Besides you are advocating directly that those unwanted children are somehow wanted. Prove it not in your words but in your actions.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Eric says:
Lauren: “btw you spelled aside wrong in your main post, might want to fix it lol.
Thanks. Fixed.
“if I do come, do you know what I look like?”
Well, I’ve seen the pic on your profile at CampusProgress. I’m guessing you won’t be wearing that same dress, though.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Lauren says:
Hahah! most likely not:) i’ll try to cover my devil horns if i make it though… its hard to find shoes for these hooves!
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Pansy Moss says:
A muslim wouldn’t work in a meat market.
Muslims work in meat markets all the time. You never heard of a Hallal meat market? They are the best places for me to get my goat meat for curried goat in the northeast. But I wouldn’t demand him to supply pork chops.
What happens in terms of prescription for me, it is between me and my DOCTOR. As you know, pharmacists are NOT doctors and nor have any right to tell me what I can’t have. They are in the business of dispensing my prescription. It’s none of their GOD DAMN business. If they don’t like it, find another job. Yes it is that simple and no there is NO excuse for this sort of behavior.
What does being a doctor have anything to do with anything? No one is questioning whether a pharmacist is playing doctor. No one is diagnosing illness and prescribing for illness. Pharmacists simply dispense prescriptions, and they have a right to not have to dispense prescriptions against their religion or moral conviction. It is not about wanting to get into your business, it is about being true to their own. Again, find a pro-choice pharmacist. Just like you have a right to use birth control legally in this country, if you are truly “pro-choice” then a anti-birth control pharmacist has the “choice” of sticking to his/her own morals.
If you’re so uncomfortable with “crazy” characterizations of the pro-life movement why do you insist on characterizing the pro-choice movement in a similar fashion? Do I seem crazy to you/? Do I and your supposed friends really want world domination through abortion and love to commit murder plots? Dont dish it out if you can’t take it either.
Once again, you never fully read a post before you start getting on your soap box and sounding off about what you want people to say as opposed to what they really say. I am not uncomfortable with what pro-choice people think of me because they don’t know me. They, like you do, can generalise all they want, it is merely a sign of ignorance and prejudice.
Do I seem crazy to you/?
Listen to what you write next…
Do I and your supposed friends really want world domination through abortion and love to commit murder plots?
“world domination”? “murder plots”? Do I really need to answer that question. I made the mistake in trying to make a point, and it was not nasty, it was simply a point you disagreed with and you started with your cussing, CAPITAL LETTERS, calling people names, accusing people of plotting murder, yet we are the crazy ones…
Dont dish it out if you can’t take it either.
Girl please, again, your imagination is running in overdrive.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 6:27 pm
Lauren says:
Your dismissal of my legitimate arguments figures. You want to dismiss me because my delivery made you uncomfortable? Too bad. All it says is that you have no proof to your outlandish claims.
Do I not have the right to visit a pharmacy and expect my prescription to get filled? Answer that question. Do I have the right to go to the pharmacy without a religious lecture?
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 6:52 pm
mary kay hastings says:
My poor little Lauren,
You spent so much time taking apart every word that I said, that you completely missed the point.
The point is that we make judgements on behaviors all the time and then we pass laws because we find that we can’t trust people to do the right thing. (I can just hear you now…who is to say what is right and what is wrong. where do I get off telling other people how to live…) But you see, that is just my point. We do it all the time, with things like the holocaust, pedophilia, child abuse, drug use etc. I am not comparing these to each other. I am not saying that they are equal evils. I am simply saying that we have made judgements and passed laws to make sure that these behaviors are curtailed and kept as rare as possible. Using your logic we should have allowed Hitler to continue, because sooner or later someone else was going to do it anyway, And let the pedophiles have their fun because if you keep it illegal they will do it in secret. Make it legal so that at least they can take precautions. It’s their body, right? Abortion should be kept legal because otherwise people will do it anyway. At least if it’s legal we can keep it safe. But safe for who?
Can you honestly not see how you feel fine pushing your agenda, but get all huffy when we push ours? The difference is that you use yourself as a moral compass (by your own admission) and we use the church, and God.
We know that we are capable of making errors in judgement and that is why we practice the virtue of obedience. We trust that the church will live up to the promise made to us through Jesus, and we follow what it teaches. We don’t do it mindlessly, we spend hours and hours in prayer, meditation, and contemplation.
We listen as well as speak, and because we are open to God’s voice, we are able to be silent and hear what he is telling us.
“Thou shalt not kill”
It doesn’t get any more black and white than that.
Gray area only enters into it when you blur the black and white.
Having an absolute black and white moral code doesn’t mean it suddenly becomes easy. Being sixteen and pregnant with no support system is going to be terribly hard either way. But there is a black and white solution. Let the baby live. Take the high road and trust that in doing the right thing everything will be taken care of. Easy? No. Nothing worth it is ever easy. But it is the right thing.
In the A.A. program, one of there mantras is “one day at a time, sometimes one hour at a time…” Another one is “do the next right thing…” Chanllenging, but words of wisdom nonetheless.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Lauren says:
“My poor little Lauren”
whoa, whoa, whoa… back up a minute. For starters i am not YOURS. For second, I am not poor in intelligence nor ability. Thirdly, i am not little (hold please, i have to pause for a second so I can watch Taylor on American Idol perform one of my favorite songs (dancing in the dark-springsteen my man)) OK IM back.. im not some little girl in terms of intelligence or capability. To condescend to me in such a manner is degrading and shows such a great deal of arrogance on your part. Do not disrespect me if you dont want to be disrespected in return.
“I am not comparing these to each other. I am not saying that they are equal evils. ”
Well you certainly made it quite clear by the power of suggestion. If you dont find them comparative dont bring them up.
Wait a second, I dont feel like abortion is a moral evil. You do. I think abortion is an unfortunate circumstance of failed access to contraception. I do believe in laws, but I dont believe in the law you are proposing. The law that you are proposing are against the desires of the majority of america and set back equality for women DECADES. Why don’t you get off the computer and go make your husband dinner? Don’t you know your plae in the world?
“It’s their body, right? Abortion should be kept legal because otherwise people will do it anyway. At least if it’s legal we can keep it safe. But safe for who?”
That was never my argumentation. Don’t attribute things to me I didnt say.
“The difference is that you use yourself as a moral compass (by your own admission) and we use the church, and God.”
Wait a second you are morally superior to me because you follow an established set of beliefs that at one time excused slavery and racism. Give me abreak. One time I was pushing for something I vehemently believed in and wanted to help others… A priest told me that that part of me is God working through me. You don’t own God and you sure as hell don’t know what God thinks. What happens to me in the afterlife is between me and her/him/it, and really you are in no place to say I am religious therefore I am moral. All you are doing is shielding yourself from criticism that may be due. I’m so sick and tired of the religious right of doing this. You get to say outlandish things and say WAIT A SECOND i’m religious and therefore anyone attacking that person is somehow attacking religion. Give me a break. This defense is tired.
Sigh you completely contradicted yourself in your argumentation of black and white.
Comment posted May 16th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Young Christian Woman says:
Lauren:
You mentioned the term “abortifacient.” Most chemical forms of birth control–the pill, the shot, the patch, and “emergency contraception”–have three effects. They prevent ovulation, which is a contraceptive measure. They thicken cervical mucus to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg, which is a contraceptive measure. They also thin the lining of the uterus. This means that when the tiny human embryo tries to implant in the womb several days after it is formed from a sperm cell and an egg cell, it is far less likely to be successful. (All of these methods are listed in Physician’s Desk Reference, a respected guide to medications.) Because the pill and similar chemical agents can prevent this embryo from living, many anti-abortion people feel that this is a very early abortion. I trust that you do not find these facts offensive, because you do not think that abortion should be wrong.
As someone who is pro-choice, however, you should find it offensive that this information is almost never given to women who request the pill or have it recommended to them by a doctor. This information does not come with the pill’s packaging in many cases. The women is denied her right to choose by her own doctor, who does not tell her information she may care deeply about. Before I got married, I asked my doctor twice for information on natural family planning, which I thought I would be more comfortable with, but received no information. She said she would get me a pamphlet, but then said she had forgotten it. She never brought up the possibility that I could be harming my unborn son or daughter, nor did the pharmacist. I truly wish I had encountered one of those brave and kind pro-life pharmacists who are spreading the truth; I might now have a child if I had.
As someone who is pro-choice, I also do not see why you do not rejoice with Eric and his wife in their choice not to limit their children. If you are pro-choice, why do you think that the choice to have seven children should not be protected but the choice to abort seven children (more common than you think) should not be?
How can the pro-life movement be hateful? If they are racist, how can they not agree with Margaret Sanger, who wanted to make sure that birth control and abortion were available to minorities so that their numbers would be limited? Why are they trying to save the disproportionate amount of unborn babies whose mothers or fathers are ethnic minorities? If they are “anti-gay,” why aren’t they trying to find the “gay gene” so that parents can abort their children who might be gay? If they are anti-woman, why are they so against abortions which select for gender? (Think that doesn’t happen here? When couples are convinced to “selectively reduce” some of their children when pregnant with multiples, and told to choose which to keep, they usually wish to save the boys.) Most children grow up to believe what their parents do. I would guess that the majority of women getting abortion are not Christian and are liberals. They are, naturally, pro-abortion. Why, then, if the pro-life movement hates such people, do they desire to save their children? Why are pro-lifers not content to let democrats die out as they refuse to let their family lines continue, whether through “birth control” or abortion?
I am not sure where you get the idea that people who are against abortion want to limit your rights or want “compulsory pregnancy.” Compulsory pregnancy would be if everyone went once a month to a government clinic and got artificially inseminated. No one here wants that. I believe that the law in this country (US) has to respect each person’s autonomy: yours, Eric’s, Eric’s wife’s, mine, and my unborn child’s, though that child has been alive only a week or two if he or she exists. That means that I would not campaign for homosexual acts or extramarital sex acts to be made illegal, or for non-abortive birth control to be illegal. A woman in this country can become pregnant in only two ways: 1) she chooses to have sex, or 2) someone takes an illegal action against her. This means that no matter what, compulsory pregnancy is illegal.
Children of rape and incest are a tiny minority of those killed by abortion. I do not suspect from your posts that you would support a law that legalized abortion but only in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. I also do not think you would support a law legalizing it only for rape, incest, life of the mother, or children under sixteen.
Virtually no one knows the moment they are impregnated. A pregnancy is unlikely to be very inconvenient in the first trimester. No one requires a woman to be responsible for a child she conceives all her life; all infants are very adoptable (there are waiting lists for babies with Down’s Syndrome or Spina bifida, and organizations exist to help families with or find homes for infants who are not expected to live beyond a few weeks or years.)
Logically, you cannot argue for abortion based on the hard cases unless you are willing to allow legislation preventing abortion in all but such cases. What you are arguing for is the right of a woman to kill a child (by eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has every part and function of a full-term baby) to spare herself, at most, six or seven months of mild discomfort and possibly embarrassment.
Do not claim that I am a hypocrite if I do not help such women. I don’t know any. Feel free to send anyone my way who needs assistance, and I will gladly open my home to them and give them the support they need to let their son or daughter have a chance at life. Every pregnancy may not be wanted, but every baby is. I hope that if you do conceive a child, you will take a moment to consider the many women who have suffered through infertility, miscarriages, disease, and abuse that has left them childless. I hope that you will look beyond your separation from your son or daughter–which would happen through abortion as much as through adoption–and desire to connect that human being with parents that desperately want a child of their own.
Lauren, I want you to know that God is pro-choice. He gives us choices in our lives, but wants us to pick the correct ones. He chose to die for our sins, allowing us access to eternal life, and we have the choice to accept or reject it. Even if we reject his gift, God is still pro-life: he will not smite you for turning away from him or blaspheming him or disparaging his followers. I know that, before Christ saved me from my sin, I was very anti-Christian, but God opened up the opportunity for me to choose a better way. You are free to choose; choose for yourself this day whom you will serve.
Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 2:29 am
mary kay hastings says:
Lauren,
Once again you have missed the boat…
Maybe if I speak slowly, you will understand…
We make judgements all the time….
Then we make laws….
Then we have a better and safer society.
Like no slavery, less child abuse, less
pedophilia, no more holocaust…
again because we make judgements all the
time…..
by the way, you keep saying that know “likes abortion”…I urge you to take a look at the pictures from the San Francisco Rally…
For people who don’t like abortion, there sure are a lot of T-shirts that say “I (heart) abortion. And did you notice that only the prochoicers have their middle fingers in the air, threaten to hurt the prolifers, are throwing things etc.
You also never answered my question about violence…
You say you would never ever ever ever advocate violence of any kind and yet you’ve seen the pictures of babies sucked through vacuum cleaner hoses, bodies ripped apart, tossed in garbage can, scissors poked through their skulls…which part of that is non-violent exactly?
mk
Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Eric says:
Young Christian Woman says: “. . . Eric and his wife in their choice not to limit their children”
Just a clarification here: We have actually sought to limit the number of our children, first through contraception and later through Natural Family Planning. Otherwise, we’d probably have eight, or maybe nine, instead of seven (so far).
However, we’ve never really thought about it as “limiting our children”—at least not since giving up contraception, that is. Rather, it’s a matter of discerning whether or not the time is right to welcome another child, or if the greater gift to each other and our family is to postpone pregnancy. Not “We only want to have X children,” but “Right now is not a good time for another.”
Of course, our wisdom is not perfect, and neither is our capacity to carry forward our own plans in this world that is not of our making. Sometimes God’s plans are different (either on when to conceive or when not to conceive)—and they’re always better.
Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 7:56 am
Lauren says:
Wait, wait, wait a minute
Most birth control pills are “combination pills” containing a combination of the hormones estrogen and progesterone to prevent ovulation (the release of an egg during the monthly cycle). A woman cannot get pregnant if she doesn’t ovulate because there is no egg to be fertilized. The Pill also works by thickening the mucus around the cervix, which makes it difficult for sperm to enter the uterus and reach any eggs that may have been released. The hormones in the Pill can also sometimes affect the lining of the uterus, making it difficult for an egg to attach to the wall of the uterus.
I’m no doctor but that says to me THERE IS NO EGG TO BE FERTILIZED.
“I truly wish I had encountered one of those brave and kind pro-life pharmacists who are spreading the truth; I might now have a child if I had.”
Wait wait wait again.. I dont want any pharmacist to impose their agenda on me. Pro-life or pro-choice. Would you want it the other way around.. if I have questions, I consult my doctor, NOT my pharmacist. If I dont like what the doctor says, I get a second opinion. You can’t just be like wow this pharmacist is not credible because it didnt tell you what you wanted to hear. Give me a freaking break lady.. Oh i could’ve had a child, waa, waa, waa. If we’re going through your line of thinking if God wanted you to have a child, he would’ve given you one.
“If you are pro-choice, why do you think that the choice to have seven children should not be protected but the choice to abort seven children (more common than you think) should not be?”
For starters I never said he wasn’t able to have 7 children and nor should anyone stop him from having such. Yet, I think it’s a little crazy Eric gets up on his soapbox and yet is doing literally nothing to take in unwanted children.
Alright more common than i might think.. hmmmprove it.. Oh wait, am i getting a little too facty?
“How can the pro-life movement be hateful? If they are racist, how can they not agree with Margaret Sanger, who wanted to make sure that birth control and abortion were available to minorities so that their numbers would be limited?”
Are you accusing me of being a racist lol? As someone who has a big fist hanging on my wall that says fight racism, I find it a little shocking to being called a racist. Don’t use straw man argumentation. If I did that to you I’d pool you in the same group as Eric Rudolph. I don’t think that’s fair do you?
“Why are they trying to save the disproportionate amount of unborn babies whose mothers or fathers are ethnic minorities?”
I never heard of the pro-birth movement doing this but the reason proportionately it affects more ethnic minorities is due to economics. Something I too work for in terms of social justice.
“If they are “anti-gay,” why aren’t they trying to find the “gay gene” so that parents can abort their children who might be gay?”
Gay gene? You guys dont believe gay is something you’re born with so why the hell would you look for a gene? Someone is getting a little sidetracked….
“If they are anti-woman, why are they so against abortions which select for gender?”
They are against all abortions it’s not like they’re against this specific kind.
“A woman in this country can become pregnant in only two ways: 1) she chooses to have sex, or 2) someone takes an illegal action against her. This means that no matter what, compulsory pregnancy is illegal.”
WHAAAAA? eyes crossing.
“I would guess that the majority of women getting abortion are not Christian and are liberals.”
Wow, seriously no offense but that statement right there makes you a B-word. Here i’m about to get a little facty on you right here.
Who’s having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as “Born-again/Evangelical”.
So let’s see let’s add the good Christians together. 37.4 + 31.3 = 68.7% So let’s see most are non-Christians. Doesnt seem like most to me.. YOU CANNOT JUST ASSUME THINGS BECAUSE IT IS COMFORTABLE FOR YOU!!!! HOW CAN YOU DENY YOURSELF THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT’S REALLY GOING ON. UGHHHHHHHHHH giant grunt.
So liberals huh.. Oh my never on this site have I been more angry with someone. But I’m going to do my best to control my anger.. Sigh.. Take a deep breath. You want to see what conservatives have caused/let happen or see what your Savior Bush has done? Go to the SUDAN. Go to IRAQ. Go to ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMENTARY. GO LOOK IN HALLIBURTON’S POCKET BOOKS. There is BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS LADY. I’m not talking about zygote blood…. I”M TALKING ABOUT REAL, LIVE HUMAN FULLY BREATHING CHILD, MOTHER, FATHER, BLOOD because of the bombs YOU ALLOWED to be DROPPED on those POOR PEOPLE. YOU LET THAT HAPPEN. You PUT YOUR HEAD in THE SAND AND LET THAT HAPPEN. I CRY SO MUCH BECAUSE I GRIEVE FOR THOSE PEOPLE AND ALL YOU CARE ABOUT IS TAKING MY RIGHTS AWAY! GOD WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS WORLD? Please God help me find the strength to deal with this people. God I cannot do it. Please help me. Why are they so mean? i can’t take it anymore.
Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 12:24 pm
Lauren says:
OK i’ve taken a deep breath.. I really couldn’t take it anymore.
Young Christian Woman. I’m sad for you and I will pray for you. God is meant to open our eyes and not close them. God gave us a brain for us to use it. I dont believe that God would want us to be so judgemental and have such a lack of compassion. I’m hopeful that one day you will understand that not everyone who disagrees with you on this issue is evil or out to “kill babies.” We are here to save the lives of women. We are here to make sure that women remain an equal part of society relative to men. I’m sorry you dont want it that way.
I’m going to try to discuss a few other points I’d like you to prove respond to:
“ill infants are very adoptable (there are waiting lists for babies with Down’s Syndrome or Spina bifida, and organizations exist to help families with or find homes for infants who are not expected to live beyond a few weeks or years.)”
Prove it. Find me evidence. I’m not disagreeing with you, but in the age of group homes and orphanages, I’m not sure that I can believe you.
“What you are arguing for is the right of a woman to kill a child (by eight weeks of pregnancy the baby has every part and function of a full-term baby) to spare herself, at most, six or seven months of mild discomfort and possibly embarrassment.”
First off, you phrased it that way I didnt. Let me ask you something what if you are a 10 year old girl, pregnant and raped. You would only force a girl who is 10 years old ot carry that child? Are you serious? I know someone this happened to and she is one of the main reasons I fight.
“Every pregnancy may not be wanted, but every baby is”
That’s a real rosy statement. Care to back it up?
“Lauren, I want you to know that God is pro-choice. He gives us choices in our lives, but wants us to pick the correct ones. He chose to die for our sins, allowing us access to eternal life, and we have the choice to accept or reject it. Even if we reject his gift, God is still pro-life: he will not smite you for turning away from him or blaspheming him or disparaging his followers. I know that, before Christ saved me from my sin, I was very anti-Christian, but God opened up the opportunity for me to choose a better way. You are free to choose; choose for yourself this day whom you will serve.”
Lmao. Sorry I can’t say anything nice to this, so I wont say anything at all.
Oh mary kay you’re back… glad to see you. Or should I call you God?
“Maybe if I speak slowly, you will understand…”
Lmao… Here comes the judgement/condescenion patrol.. Wee-ow-weeeooooo… That’s my lame excuse for a siren noise.
Why the heck would a pro-life site feature demeaning pictures of pro-life people? Can I be held responsible for the stupidity of some? no. and you’ve gotten off on this well they are so mean waa waa routine It makes me begin to wonder…. You are characterizing nearly half the female population as murderers, dont you think some people might be angry about that? Don’t you think people like myself who really, really, really disagree with youmight hold a little resentment and disgust.. perhaps the actions aren’t the wisest, but dont you see why they might occur? Think about it, seriously.
“You also never answered my question about violence…
You say you would never ever ever ever advocate violence of any kind and yet you’ve seen the pictures of babies sucked through vacuum cleaner hoses, bodies ripped apart, tossed in garbage can, scissors poked through their skulls…which part of that is non-violent exactly?”
Lol…. you’ve never read my limits on abortion statements have you?
Eric a lot of people aren’t as fortunate as you to be able to have that many children and stay afloat. Other people simply do not want any children. Who are you to criticize them for making a choice different than yours?
Comment posted May 17th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
mary kay hastings says:
Lauren,
I have absolutely no idea what you are going on about…
what prolifers in what pictures? what “well they are so mean waa waa routine”? If you are referring to the fact that no prolifers were shown giving proaborts the finger because prolife sites wouldn’t show that, then show me where to find pictures of us throwing things or holding foul-mouthed signs on any site…
anyway off track again…
Are you having a hard time addressing the issues that I have raised.
Maybe you still don’t understand them.
So lets just take them one at a time:
People judge other peoples actions all the time.
You accuse us of shoving our agenda (no abortion) down your throat, claiming we have no right to impose our beliefs on you, and yet you retain the right to impose your agenda (legal abortion) on us.
and lastly,
You say that you are against violence of any kind ever ever ever,
and yet you are able to look at pictures of aborted babies (at any age) and say that that is all right. I consider what is done to those